Preamble

The House met at a quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Private Bills (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bills, referred on the Second Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:

Grand Junction Company Bill.
Gas Light and Coke Company Bill.
South Suburban Gas Bill.

Bills committed.

Private Bills (Substituted Bill),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, introduced pursuant to the provisions of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, the Standing Orders, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:

Clyde Navigation Bill (Substituted Bill).

Provisional Order Bills (No Standing Orders applicable),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Merthyr Tydfil Water Charges) Bill.

Bill to be read a Second time To-morrow.

Glasgow Corporation Bill,

Read a Second time, and committed.

Great Western Railway Bill (by Order), Second Reading deferred till Thursday.

Great Western Railway (Air Transport) Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Friday.

London and North Eastern Railway Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Thursday.

London and North Eastern Railway (Air Transport) Bill (by Order),

London and North Eastern Railway (Air Transport, Scotland) Bill (by Order), Second Reading deferred till Friday.

London, Midland, and Scottish Railway Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Thursday.

London, Midland, and Scottish Railway (Air Transport) Bill (by Order),

London, Midland, and Scottish Railway (Air Transport, Scotland) Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Friday.

Metropolitan Railway Bill (by Order), Southern Railway Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Thursday.

Southern Railway (Air Transport) Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Friday.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

SAFEGUARDED GOODS (PRICES).

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: 1.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will cause an inquiry to be instituted into the prices of comparable safeguarded articles to-day and before they were safeguarded?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave on 11th December to the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Dalton), a copy of which I am sending him.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Would the right hon. Gentleman also include a statement from the Minister of Agriculture with regard to the increase of prices of goods affecting his Department?

SWITZERLAND (BRITISH TEXTILE GOODS).

Mr. HANNON: 2.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state the amount of the duties now imposed by the Swiss Government upon handkerchiefs, household goods of linen, coarse and fine cotton goods and articles for domestic use manufactured from jute or hemp imported into Switzerland from Great Britain; and whether, as articles of a similar nature are imported from Switzerland into this country free of duty, he proposes to take appropriate retaliatory measures?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I understand that a full answer to my hon. Friend's question would occupy from three to four pages of the OFFICIAL REPORT, and I hardly think it justifiable to take up so much space. If, however, my hon. Friend will specify any particular class of goods in which he is specially interested I shall endeavour to send him the particulars he desires. I ought at the same time to point out that, except in one case, the duties in question have been in force since 1921, that the general level of the Swiss tariff is lower than that of most European countries, and that I have received no serious complaints from British manufacturers as to the incidence of these duties. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

Mr. HANNON: Is it not a fact, notwithstanding that the duties are low, that there is difficulty in getting British goods into Switzerland where an article of the same kind is produced in Switzerland?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: As a matter of fact, the level of Swiss duties is very low, and I wish that other European countries had duties equally low.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Is it not a fact that in the case of some of the goods mentioned—handkerchiefs and linen goods—there was an inquiry, and that the application for a duty was unanimously turned down?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I do not understand the question. The question I was asked was, what was the tariff in Switzerland upon goods going into Switzerland?

Mr. ALEXANDER: The question was whether the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to take retaliatory measures?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have answered that question.

Mr. CRAWFURD: Is it not a fact that in the report of the inquiry already mentioned it was stated that these goods were not imported into this country at prices lower than those with which our manufacturers could compete?

RUSSIA (IMPORTS).

Mr. TAYLOR: 6.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give the total exports to Russia from Britain, Germany, United States of America, and France, respectively, for the years 1927 and 1928?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The answer takes the form of a table of figures with notes; and the hon. Member will perhaps allow me to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The following statement, extracted from the Soviet trade returns, shows the recorded value of the imports of merchandise into the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics from the United Kingdom, Germany, United States of America and France, respectively, during the 12 months ended September, 1927 and 1928. Figures for the calendar year 1928 are not yet available:


—
Twelve months ended September.


1927.
1928.


Imports into the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics from:—
Thousand £s.


United Kingdom
10,295
4,793


Germany
16,725
25,559


United States
15,209
19,166


France
2,297
3,729


Notes:—(1) The above figures of imports are inclusive of some goods not produced in the Countries from which they were imported.


(2) The conversions from gold roubles into £ sterling have been made at the average rates of exchange.

SUGAR IMPORTS.

Sir JOHN POWER: 7.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, having regard to the difficulty of interpreting, on a comparative basis, the statistics relating to the imports of sugar since refining in bond ceased on 25th April, 1928, he can state the retained imports of refined and unrefined sugar, respectively, since the date on which the Sugar Duties were revised and, for comparison, the corresponding figures for a period of similar length commencing a year previously?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: With my hon. Friend's permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table containing the information he asks for.

Following is the table:

The following table shows the imports, exports and retained imports of unrefined and refined sugar, respectively, registered during the undermentioned periods:—


—
May, 1927 to January, 1928.
May, 1928 to January, 1929.


Unrefined Sugar:
Cwts.
Cwts.


Total Imports
19,528,060
27,561,596


Re-exports
34,124
13,948


Retained Imparts
19,493,936
27,547,648


Refined Sugar (including Candy):




Total Imports
5,996,744
2,301,548


Re-exports
63,380
195,203


Retained Imports
5,933,364
2,106,345


Refined Sugar (including Candy):




Exports (United Kingdom Manufacture).
1,438,025
1,151,903

The refined sugar exported represents unrefined sugar imported or the produce of homegrown sugar beet. Information is not available as to the proportions in which it was derived from these two sources.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

MERCANTILE MARINE OFFICE, GRIMSBY.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: 3.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if it is his intention to appoint another clerk at the Grimsby mercantile marine office to re-
place the clerk recently transferred to another district; and if, before coming to a decision, he will take into account the fact that there are between 18,000 and 19,000 arrivals of fishing vessels annually at this port, that log-books for vessels have to be issued each half-year, and that Royal Naval Reserve and other service work has to be dealt with by this office?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: After full investigation of the volume of work at, the Grimsby mercantile marine office, it has been decided that it is not necessary to make a permanent appointment to replace the clerk recently transferred. Arrangements have, however, been made to provide additional staff to meet the pressure involved in the receipt and examination of fishing vessels' agreements at the end of each half-year, and the requirements of the work generally will continue to be carefully watched.

Ex-ENEMY DEPARTMENT.

Mr. KELLY: 5.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Report of the investigation into the Enemy Debts Department has been considered; and, if so, will the decision arrived at be communicated to Members of this House?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The Report of the investigation into the accounting procedure of the Enemy Debts Department shows that the system adopted is satisfactorily performing its function, but that the completion of the work on existing lines must necessarily take a considerable time. It makes a number of suggestions, which are being carefully examined, but I am not at present in a position to make any statement upon them.

Mr. KELLY: Is there a possibility of the result of the right hon. Gentleman's consideration being made known to the House?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Yes, Sir, I think so. But that is a very difficult question to answer. When dealing with a number of small Departmental points, or some slight matter of administration here or there, one cannot take an obscure case and make a speech about it. If the matter is referred to on the Vote for my Department, I shall be glad to give an explanation.

BLINDED EX-SERVICE MEN.

Captain FRASER: 48.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he can see his way to authorise an increase in the scale of salaries of blinded soldiers engaged as telephonists in Government Departments?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel): The remuneration of blinded ex-service men employed as telephone operators in Government Departments is at present under review by a Committee of the National Whitley Council. I shall be happy to inform my hon. and gallant Friend of the result in due course.

Captain FRASER: In the event of an agreed report which is satisfactory to these men being received by the Treasury, will my hon. Friend deal sympathetically with it?

Mr. SAMUEL: Yes, Sir, certainly; if an agreement is reached on the National Whitley Council, it certainly will be accepted by us.

EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE, DARLINGTON.

Mr. SHEPHERD: 52.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the hardship to the men and inconvenience to the staff resulting from the inadequacy of the present Employment Exchange buildings in Darlington; and whether he will therefore consider making temporary arrangements to alleviate the existing conditions, pending the building of the new exchange?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): I understand there is some congestion on the weekly pay-day. Arrangements are therefore being made for payment on two days during the week instead of one.

Mr. SHEPHERD: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that representations on this matter have been made for eight years? Could not some special arrangements be made to obviate the hardships both to the men and the staff?

Mr. BETTERTON: No sir, I am not aware that representations have been made for eight years, but I have made most careful arrangements in order to alleviate the grievance to which the hon. Member refers.

Oral Answers to Questions — LIGHTHOUSE (STRATHY POINT).

Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: 4.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the wreck of the Grimsby trawler "King Edward VII" at Brims Ness on the night of 2nd February: and whether, seeing that this is the fourth wreck on the same stretch of coast within the last 12 months, he will reconsider the question of sanctioning the building of a lighthouse at Strathy Point?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: My attention has been drawn to the wreck mentioned. The initiative in reviving the scheme for a lighthouse at Strathy Point rests with the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses, who are the General Lighthouse Authority. In 1925 the scheme was provided for in the Authority's Estimates, but was not pressed by them in view of the heavy expense of £34,000 involved and of the lack of funds for more urgent lighthouse works. Moreover, the work was criticised by the Advisory Committee to the Board of Trade on new lighthouse works, on the ground that it was not necessary in the interests of general navigation, and it failed to receive the statutory approval of the Trinity House on that ground, with the result that the Board of Trade did not give their financial sanction. The scheme has not been provided for in the Estimates of the Commissioners since 1925.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: Seeing that ten men on this trawler were rescued in a heavy sea in the dead of night only through the pluck and seamanship of the Thurso lifeboat crew, and seeing that there have been four further wrecks on this coast within twelve months, will not the right hon. Gentleman take the matter into consideration, these facts being fresh since the date of the last investigation?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The answer to that question is two-fold. In the first place, I have no power to initiate lighthouse construction. That is a matter, the initiation of which rests with the lighthouse authorities. Of course, if a scheme for a lighthouse is put forward by the proper lighthouse authorities that will receive full consideration by Trinity House and the Board of Trade; and, in the second place, although there have
been four wrecks within a good many miles of this place, one or two of them were much nearer to a lighthouse a, good way to the east, and I would certainly hesitate to say whether those wrecks could have been prevented by a lighthouse at this point.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a considerable increase of traffic by reason of trawlers going further north than was the case in 1925, and will he make representations to the Lighthouse Commissioners at any rate to take observations and see how much traffic really does pass along this coast?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I do not think it is for me to make representations to the Lighthouse Commissioners. The lighthouse authorities are very alive to all these questions, but of course you have to consider what is the relevant urgency of different classes of work, and there may be places which think it desirable to have unlimited expenditure but which do not call for immediate attention.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

SPECIAL CAMPAIGN PENSIONS.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that a soldier having completed 12 years' Army service and discharged, on attaining the age of 65, is entitled to a special campaign pension of 1s. a day if without means, and that those men who are in receipt of small incomes, the result of their thrift in saving money, are denied this special campaign pension to which they would have been entitled had they saved no money; and whether he is prepared to take steps to remove this hardship on old soldiers?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): Special campaign pensions are purely compassionate awards. As such they are only given to old Regular soldiers who are in necessitous circumstances, and the amount of pension granted is fixed in relation to, and varies with, the recipients' other means. To award these pensions without reference to such means
would be contrary to the intention of the grant, and I am therefore unable to accept the hon. and gallant Member's suggestion.

Lieut. Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of these ex-soldiers, though possessed of small means, are very hard put to it in these times, owing to the increased cost of living, and in these cases would the right hon. Gentleman make a grant?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: If I had special funds available, yes, but I have not. I have to make the best use of what funds are available.

PRIVATE ENGAGEMENTS (THEATRICAL PERFORMANCES).

Mr. BRIANT: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for War if he has yet obtained any information as to whether any application was made to the commanding officer of the Guards for their services in the production at a London theatre; if such an application is necessary when an engagement of some duration is sought; and, if as application was made, did it state the conditions and number of hours in which the men would be employed?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: As regards fie first part of the question, I am informed that no such application was made. The answer to the second part is in the negative, provided that military duties are not interfered with. The third part does not arise.

Mr. BRIANT: Has the right hon. Gentleman made any inquiry whatever as to the accuracy of the statement that men are away for a week or two on end and all day long? If that is so, does it not seem strange, after the appeals of the Government and of the Prince of Wales to employ ex-service men, that these men should occupy positions that could be filled by unemployed ex-service men?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I have made inquiry, and what I said the other day is substantially accurate. I gather that about 50 Guardsmen have been employed, and that is about one per cent. of those in London. They are not duty men in barracks. They are chiefly those employed in the Pay and Record Office, or married men living out of barracks, and I cannot and do not
wish to prevent their occupying their spare time as they may think best.

Mr. DAY: Does not their employment at matinees in these theatres, interfere with their work?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I am satisfied that this employment does not interfere with their military duties.

Mr. R. MORRISON: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that, even if it is only one per cent., it means that work might be found for 50 ex-service men who are out of work now?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I cannot prevent, and I ought not to prevent, soldiers employing their leisure time as they wish, even if they are earning money at it.

Mr. MORRISON: Will the right hon. Gentleman send copies of the Prime Minister's letter to these people?

Oral Answers to Questions — AERIAL ATTACK (SHELTERS, LONDON).

Mr. THURTLE: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for War if his Department has in its possession information as to the number and capacity of underground places in London which would be suitable as shelters from aerial bombing in the event of war?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Lieut.-Colonel Sir Vivian Henderson): I have been asked to reply. Under the direction of my Noble Friend the First Commissioner of Works, a survey of places suitable as shelters from aerial attack is being made. My Noble Friend is not able to give any details as to the result of this survey.

Mr. THURTLE: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether, when the survey is finished, he will be able to let us know the extent and capacity of these places?

Sir V. HENDERSON: No, Sir.

Mr. WELLOCK: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman not think that in case there is another war practically everybody in London would be underground?

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

INSHORE FISHERIES (TRAWLERS).

Sir A. SINCLAIR: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has any statement to make about the results of his investigations into the recent depredations of trawlers in the North Coast of Scotland and the losses of gear suffered by the inshore fishermen; whether his attention has been drawn to similar complaints made by the Buckie and District Fishermen's Association with regard to the ravages of the trawlers in the Moray Firth and the loss of upwards of £400 worth of fishing nets by the inshore fishermen; and whether he will undertake to give more effective protection to the inshore fishermen on these coasts?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): Further inquiries have been made as to the alleged illegal trawling on the North Coast of Scotland, but no definite evidence of illegal trawling or illegal seining has been forthcoming. Only three specific cases of damage to gear have been reported to the Fishery Board from this district and of these two at least were outside the area in which trawling is prohibited. The investigation of these cases with respect to compensation is being pursued in the usual way. Cases of damage to anchored cod nets in the Moray Firth have been reported to the Fishery Board, but I regret to find that despite warnings issued the fishermen continue to leave their nets unlighted and unattended and so long as this is the practice damage is unavoidable although a constant patrol of the area is maintained and every effort is made by the fishery cruisers to warn foreign trawlers as to the presence of the nets. It is very desirable in the fishermen's own interests that they should observe the regulations issued for the lighting and marking of the nets drawn up by the Fishery Board and should stand by the nets at night. A meeting of fishermen held recently at Buckie recommended the boats concerned to mark and light their nets and if this recommendation is observed the situation should be improved. The Fishery Board have suggested to the fishermen co-operative action to secure attendance on the nets at night under a rota system.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that two trawlers have been caught in Sandside Bay, by the fishery patrol cruiser, since I last questioned him on the subject; and that another trawler has been caught by the local fishermen on the west side of Dunnet Head with its trawl working within the three-mile limit; and in view of this, how can he say that there is no evidence of any illegal trawling on this coast?

Sir J. GILMOUR: No, Sir. This statement was furnished to me by the Fishery Board. I saw the head of the Fishery Board this morning and, as far as I understand, the position is as I have stated it.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: Are the trawlers complained of foreign or British?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I do not know.

LAND DRAINAGE SCHEMES.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland, whether there has been any alteration in the Government's land drainage policy, which was announced in the Government's White Paper on Agricultural Policy [Command Paper 2581], both as regards the amount of money to be made available during the five-year period therein contemplated and the free choice of labour under grant-aided schemes; and whether he will make a statement explaining the present intentions of the Government?

Sir J. GILMOUR: There is no change except as regards the period over which the grants are to be made. I explained the position in this respect in reply to a question by the hon. and gallant Member on 24th July last. In his reference to the free choice of labour the hon. Member is perhaps thinking of the additional drainage scheme to alleviate unemployment, which was announced last month. It provides for grants being made at a higher rate for the assistance of agricultural drainage and other works carried out by means of labour obtained through the Employment Exchanges and composed in part of unemployed persons transferred from depressed areas. This scheme is referred to in the reply given by the Minister of Labour on 24th ultimo to the question by the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown).

Sir A. SINCLAIR: Cannot the higher rates available for this scheme be made available also for schemes on which the unemployed in Wick—where one man in seven is out of work—could be employed?

Sir J. GILMOUR: No, Sir, not under the scheme.

HOUSING, BROXBURN.

Mr. SHINWELL: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of occupied houses in Broxburn which have been condemned as unfit for habitation; how many houses have been built by the county council in the district; and whether he is satisfied that the needs of the population are being met?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I am informed that three occupied houses in Broxburn have been condemned and that 138 houses have been built by the local authority in the Bathgate district, in which the village of Broxburn is situated. As regards the last part of the question, my information is that several habitable houses in the village are unoccupied.

Mr. SHINWELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the village of Broxburn is eight miles from Bathgate, and that not a single new house has been constructed in the vicinity of Broxburn for the last 15 years?

Sir J. GILMOUR: All my information goes to show that, in the district of the local authority to which the hon. Member refers, these houses have been built.

Mr. SHINWELL: Does the right hon. Gentleman understand the geographical position of these districts? Is he not aware that Broxburn is remote from Bathgate; and is he not responsible to the people in Broxburn who are living in houses declared to be uninhabitable?

Sir J. GILMOUR: That is the responsibility of the local authority. In so far as the village of Broxburn is concerned, I understand that there are uninhabited houses which are habitable.

SURPLUS FISH SUPPLIES.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is now in a position to state whether any steps can be taken to acquire surplus catches of fish at the Scottish fishing ports, which would otherwise
be destroyed, for distribution in the distressed areas, and especially in the mining districts?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I communicated with the Scottish Central Advisory Committee, and am informed that they are considering this question in consultation with the Fishery Board for Scotland.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman let me know when a decision is reached?

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND RATING.

AGRICULTURAL BLACKSMITHS.

Mr. SHINWELL: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether premises used by agricultural blacksmiths, where the tenant is the sole workman, will come within the scope of the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act?

Sir J. GILMOUR: As the hon. Member will be aware, the matter is not one upon which I can give a binding decision as it falls to be decided by the assessor subject to appeal in each instance. In the circumstances, I feel that it would be inexpedient for me to express an opinion on the case mentioned in the question.

Mr. SHINWELL: Are we to understand from that reply that the right hon. Gentleman cannot state specifically what consequences are likely to arise from the provisions of the Local Government Bill and the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act? Are all these matters to be referred ultimately to the assessors and dealt with by the courts in Scotland?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Not necessarily by the courts. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, these subjects fall to be dealt with by the rating and valuation committee.

Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: When the right hon. Gentleman drafted the Bill, did he intend these people to be covered or not?

Sir J. GILMOUR: This is a matter subject to the rating and valuation committee.

ORKNEY AND SHETLAND (RATES).

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what the yield of a penny rate will be in Orkney and Shetland, respectively, and in each small burgh in these counties after the Local Government (Scotland) Bill has come into operation, and the de-rating of agricultural, freight, transport, and industrial lands and heritages has taken place in accordance with the provisions of the Bill?

Sir J. GILMOUR: As the answer involves a table of figures, I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Sir R. HAMILTON: What is the result of a penny rate in Lerwick and a penny rate in Shetland?

Sir J. GILMOUR: In Lerwick burgh, £111; in Shetland, landward, £68.

Following is the table:





Yield of 1d. Tate after Local Government (Scotland) Bill has come into operation





£


Orkney (landward)
…
…
73


Zetland (landward)
…
…
68


Kirkwall Burgh
…
…
74


Stromness Burgh
…
…
25


Lerwick Burgh
…
…
111

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

REPARATION COAL.

Mr. MARDY JONES: 19.
asked the Secretary for Mines in what year the payment of reparation coal was first made by Germany; what is the total quantity of such reparation coal that has been delivered in each year since to the latest available dale; what is the quantity delivered or credited to each of the recipient Allied Powers in each of these years; and what was the average selling price fixed in each year for the quantity delivered each year to each recipient Allied Power?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Commodore Douglas King): Coal was first delivered on reparation account by Germany in September, 1919, in anticipation of the coming into force of the Treaty of Versailles. I have not yet completed the inquiries which would enable
me to answer the rest of the question, but if the hon. Member would be good enough to put it down again in a fortnight's time, I hope to be in a position to give him a full reply.

Mr. JONES: Are the Government taking any immediate steps to reduce the damaging effect of this reparation coal on British coal exports; and are our experts in Paris considering this matter?

Commodore KING: I suppose it is always under review by the Reparations Commission.

Commander BELLAIRS: In the table which he is going to prepare, how will the Saar Valley coal be treated? Is that treated as reparation coal?

Commodore KING: I should have notice of that question.

SMOKELESS FUEL.

Sir ROBERT THOMAS: 20.
asked the Secretary for Mines if he can state the figures for the output of smokeless fuel in England and Wales for any convenient recent week; and, in view of the importance of popularising the use of smokeless fuel as a substitute for raw coal in domestic grates, whether he will undertake, through the Empire Marketing Board, an advertising campaign on behalf of this fuel?

Commodore KING: I presume the hon. Baronet refers to the residual fuel of low-temperature carbonisation processes. If so, I am not in possession of the figures asked for and do not think that the size of the industry yet justifies me in calling for them. The advertising campaign suggested is neither necessary nor advisable, as I understand that the companies producing such fuel have had no difficulty in disposing of it. I am advised that, in any case, such a campaign would be outside the scope of the Empire Marketing Board.

Mr. MARDY JONES: Is it not a fact that the best smokeless fuel in the world is Welsh anthracite?

Mr. PALING: Is it not a fact that the demand for this coal is overwhelmingly in excess of the supply, and would not the Government spend their time better by encouraging its production?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

TOLL GATES AND BRIDGE TOLLS.

Sir R. THOMAS: 21.
asked the Minister of Transport how many toll gates and bridge tolls he proposes to abolish or reduce during 1929; and where they are situated?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): Various schemes are before me for the acquisition and freeing of toll bridges by local authorities, with whom it rests to initiate proposals of this sort. I hope to be able to assist some such cases from the Road Fund during the coming year, but having regard to the uncertainty as to the result of the negotiations with the owners of the bridges I am not in a position to give fuller particulars.

SLIPPERY ROAD SURFACES.

Sir BASIL PETO: 22.
asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the fact that the Circular issued by his Department in June, 1925, to local authorities on the subject of slippery road surfaces referred exclusively to accidents to mechanically-propelled vehicles and made no reference to the safety of horse or pedestrian traffic, and suggested steps to be taken only with a view to the improvement of the surface of roads for mechanically-propelled traffic, he will see that in the Circular about to be issued some attention is given to the fact that main roads generally are unsafe for and, in some parts of the country, unusable by persons riding or driving horses, or driving cattle, or walking on them?

Colonel ASHLEY: The circular letter to which my lion. Friend refers stated that the first aim must be "to protect the travelling public from injury," and I think that the local authorities realise how many and varied are the modes of travel. The new Circular will draw special attention to the interests of owners of horses and others, besides those of mechanical transport.

Sir B. PETO: May I infer that it does not contravene the principle that all persons required to pay rates for the upkeep of the roads have an equal right to the user of the roads?

Colonel ASHLEY: On a general principle like that, it is rather difficult to give a definite answer, but, when my
hon. Friend sees the Circular, he will see that the equestrian and the user of horse-drawn traffic will be specially mentioned.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

AIR MAIL.

Mr. DAY: 24.
asked the Postmaster-General the number of letters carried by air mail for the 12 months ended to the last convenient date?


            The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir William
            Mitchell-Thomson)
          : During the year 1928 about 160,000 letters originating in the United Kingdom were carried abroad by air mail. In addition, about 350,000 were sent abroad by ordinary mail for subsequent conveyance by air mail.

Mr. DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this figure shows an increase on the previous year?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Speaking without reference to the exact figures, certainly.

WIRELESS LICENCES.

Mr. DAY: 25.
asked the Postmaster-General the total number of wireless licences at present in existence in Great Britain?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The total number of wireless receiving licences in force on the 31st January, 1929, in Great Britain (including Northern Ireland) was 2,684,941.

Mr. DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many of these licences are for portable receiving sets, or if there is any method of checking the licences for those sets?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: No.

Mr. W. THORNE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the approximate number of people who are not paying for licences, but who are using these receiving sets?

Mr. DAY: 26.
asked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the number of wireless receiving sets which are only fitted with earphones or two valves and a small loud speaker, he will consider the reduction of the wireless licence fee paid on these small sets?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: No, Sir. I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Colonel Howard-Bury) on the 7th February.

Mr. DAY: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think some consideration should be given to the poor people who use the very small sets?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I think it is extremely difficult in practice to differentiate according to the total value of the set, and, in addition, I agree with the view that the present charge of a penny for three days' programme is very low.

TELEPHONE SERVICE.

Sir FRANK MEYER: 27.
asked the Postmaster-General whether, in order to encourage the use of the telegraph service, he will consider remitting the charge for a local call, which is at present made in addition to the cost of the telegram, when a telegram is sent by the telephone service?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The provision of wires, equipment and operating force for the acceptance of telegrams by telephone involves the Post Office in considerable expense; and I regret that I do not see my way to saddle the telegraph service with the cost of the concession suggested by my hon. Friend.

Sir F. MEYER: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that to charge 2d. for a local call when a person wishes to send a telegram is a direct discouragement to the use of the telephone for this purpose, and, if it is desirable to increase the number of telegrams sent by this method, does this system not directly stand in the way of doing it?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I would remind my hon. Friend that the balance on the telephone account is being run low, because I am doing my best to develop the telephone service in the rural areas. If I have to keep a larger balance on the telephone account, to meet this particular demand, we shall have less development in the rural areas.

Colonel APPLIN: 32.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that a telephone subscriber who requires an extra foot of flexible wire beyond the
regulation eight feet is charged an annual rental of 6s. for the same; and whether, as this charge is five or six times the actual cost of the extra wire, he will examine this regulation with a view to supplying a reasonable length of flexible wire above eight feet where such is necessary to enable a subscriber to use his telephone in comfort?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Experience shows that cords of abnormal length, which are frequently allowed to trail on the floor, are a source of damage to the instrument and are responsible for considerably increased cost of maintenance. A special charge is therefor justifiable and necessary, but I am considering the possibility of making some reduction in the present fee.

Colonel APPLIN: is my right hon. Friend aware that this charge is considerably over 1,000 per cent. profit on a foot of wire, over its lifetime?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: It is not a question of profit per foot of wire. The charge is intended to be a deterrent to the use of an extraordinarily long cord.

PROFITS.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 28.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he is able to give the House the estimated profit of the Post Office for the year 1928–29?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: In round figures, eight and a half million pounds, subject to variation in case of abnormal weather conditions.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Can my right hon. Friend give any indication of the expected profits for 1929–30?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I think my hon. Friend must wait till the opening of the Budget.

Mr. R. MORRISON: Will the right hon. Gentleman bring that answer to the notice of the Prime Minister before he delivers his next lecture on the failure of nationalization?

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 33.
asked the Postmaster-General what is the total capital expenditure of the Post Office on buildings, telegraphs, and telephones since the War; and whether, in estimating the annual profit made by his Department, any provision is made for the replacement of such capital?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Ninety-two millions sterling. In ascertaining the annual profit of the Post Office, provision is made both for interest and for capital replacement, as to which I would refer my hon. Friend to the Commercial Accounts.

Mr. T. JOHNSTON: Is it not the case that the right hon. Gentleman charges 25½per cent. depreciation upon the telephone service, and that if he did not charge that extraordinarily large depreciation, the profits would be very much bigger?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: No, it is nothing like that; but I do not think I can give any round figure. The depreciation is charged on the straight line method and is based on the anticipated life of each item of plant. I think the average length of the telephone annuities, speaking as a whole, is something like 19¾years.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Can my right hon. Friend let the House have some comparison of the profits made on the telegraphs and telephones in this country as against the amazing profits made in Canada and the United States under private enterprise?

CASH ON DELIVERY SERVICE.

Colonel WOODCOCK: 29.
asked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that the cash-on-delivery system is being used for sending unsolicited articles for which, payment is demanded from householders; and if he proposes to take any steps to stop this practice, for which the cash-on-delivery system was never intended?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Very few cases of the kind have been brought to my notice. I do not think that there are any special steps which I could take in the matter and I doubt whether such are really necessary since the public can readily safeguard themselves, as no doubt most people do, by refusing goods which they have not ordered. In any case of attempted fraud the police authorities should be informed by the householder.

Colonel WOODCOCK: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the great inconvenience that is caused by this practice, and, if this is going to be a growing practice, can he take some steps to stop it?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I hope it will not be a growing practice. Very few cases have come to my notice —less than half-a-dozen altogether—but in any event, if a case of attempted fraud is observed, the householder should inform the police at once.

BUILDINGS, QUEEN VICTORIA STREET.

Sir W. DAVISON: 34.
asked the Postmaster-General whether it is proposed to pull down and re-erect the post office buildings in Queen Victoria Street; what is the estimated cost involved; and whether inquiry has been made as to the possibility of obtaining a less expensive site outside the City and one capable of greater expansion than is possible within the City?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: As regards the first part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given yesterday to ray hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle, North (Sir N. Grattan-Doyle). As regards the second part, every effort has been made to find a solution on these lines, but it has been found that the cost of diverting the cables would be so enormous as to be quite prohibitive.

LOSS OF MAIL BAG.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 35.
asked the Postmaster-General whether the Hull City police, the Doncaster Borough police, and the West Riding County constabulary have been invited to co-operate with the Post Office detectives respecting the disappearance of the mail bag between Hull and London on the morning of 10th February?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The Hull City police and the Doncaster Borough police are co-operating with my officers respecting the disappearance of the Hull to London mail bag on the night of the 9th-10th February. It has, so far, not been necessary to invite the co-operation of the West Riding County constabulary, or any of the other numerous police authorities through whose areas of jurisdiction the train conveying the bag would have passed.

FACILITIES, NORTH-EAST SCOTLAND.

Mr. ROBERT SMITH: 37.
asked the Postmaster-General if he is aware of the fact that businesses situated in the North-East of Scotland are hampered by the
lack of adequate and speedy postal communication with London and other industrial centres in England and the South of Scotland; whether this is in many cases due to the withdrawal of the sorting car between Aberdeen and Elgin; and if and when he hopes to be able to restore the running of this car?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I have no evidence that the postal arrangements in the North-East of Scotland are regarded as inadequate by the business community. The number of letters which would benefit by the restoration of sorting on the railway between Aberdeen and Elgin is quite insufficient to justify the expense which would be involved.

Mr. SMITH: Is it not a fact that I brough, to the notice of my right hon. Friend some time ago the inadequacy of this postal service?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Yes, it is quite true, and I am very anxious to do everything that I can to meet my hon. Friend's desires, but these are all matters of relation between the amount of correspondence involved in a particular case and the general amount of correspondence.

Mr. SMITH: Is it not a fact that the Post Office is run at a loss in certain parts of the country, and at a very great profit in others, and that it is not meant to pay all over, but is meant to be run at a loss in some parts

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: That is so.

Mr. BARCLAY-HARVEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are other parts of the North-East of Scotland, and particularly of Kincardineshire, where the postal facilities leave much to be desired.

SUB-POSTMASTER, ANGLESEY (APPOINT-MENT).

Sir R. THOMAS: 38.
asked the Postmaster-General whether the newly-appointed postmaster at Llanfairpwl1g-wyngillgogerchwyrndrobialllandysiliogogo-goch, Anglesey, is in receipt of a service pension; and whether it is on account of his own ignorance of the Welsh language that Mr. Cripps has retained the services of a Wash-speaking assistant?

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies. I want to draw his attention to the fact that the name is wrongly spelt in an important particular.

Mr. MARDY JONES: There are two syllables out of order.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I am aware that there is some doubt as to the precise spelling.

HON. MEMBERS: Pronounce it.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: It begins with "Llanfair" and ends with "gogogoch." Perhaps with all this influenza about, I had better not attempt to pronounce it. Mr. Cripps has now given notice of his resignation from the position of sub-postmaster at the place named in the question in order to continue his service in the Navy. In making a fresh appointment full consideration will be given to the qualifications of Welsh-speaking candidates.

Sir R. THOMAS: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, when he considers the appointment in future of a postmaster—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where for?"]—for LIanfairpwllgwyngillgogerchwyrndrobullllandysiliogogogoch—that he will at least appoint someone who can pronounce the name of the village in which he is occupied as postmaster?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: That, with other relative matters, will be taken into consideration.

Viscount SANDON: Does this word count one in a telegram?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: indicated assent.

COUNCIL HOUSING ESTATE, ALDERSHOT (FACILITIES).

Mr. KELLY: 39.
asked the Postmaster-General whether consideration has been given to the absence of postal facilities on the council housing estate at Aldershot, in view of the necessity for the people living on this estate to travel a mile in order to post a letter?


            Sir W.
            MITCHELL-THOMSON
          : I am having enquiry made and will write to the hon. Member.

SICKNESS INCIDENCE (WOMEN).

Mr. SNELL: 41.
asked the Postmaster-General what was the average number of
days of sick leave per head taken during each year of the last three years by women clerical officers, writing assistants, and members of the established typing grades, respectively; and what was the average number of days of sick leave per head taken on account of gastric and nervous trouble, respectively, in the case of each of the above grades during the same period in each of the main sub-departments of his department?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The answer contains many figures and with the hon. Member's consent, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is tire answer:

I regret that figures are not available which would show the incidence of sick leave for each of the grades mentioned separately for three years. The general sick leave rates of the Female Clerical and Supervising staffs of the Post Office, which include the grades referred to and other grades, were as follows:


—
London.
Provinces.
Scotland.
Northern Ireland.


1927
…
14.3
13.9
10.8
9.4


1920
…
12.9
10.2
14.2
12.7


1925
…
14.0
13.2
12.7
22.3

These figures cover staffs of about 4,300 in London, 1,250 in the Provinces, 300 in Scotland and below 50 in Northern Ireland. Figures for 1928 are not yet available.

As regards gastric and nervous trouble a special analysis of the causes of sick absence of the London staff was made in 1926 with the following results:


Grade.
Staff.
Average days per head due to-


Gastric Trouble.
Nervous Trouble.


Women Clerical Officers.
2,922
.68
2.1


Writing Assistants.
1,707
.56
1.0


Typists
305
1.29
2.8

LONDON RAILWAY STATIONS (FACILITIES).

Captain CROOKSHANK: 30.
asked the Postmaster-General if he is in a position to indicate what are the difficulties with the railway company which prevent the opening of a post office and/or the installation of automatic stamp-vending machines at King's Cross: and what is the date of the most recent negotiations on the subject?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The Railway Company have stated in the past that they could not possibly spare the necessary accommodation for a Post Office, and I have had no sufficient evidence of a general desire for additional postal facilities to lead me to re-open the matter. The question of installing automatic stamp-vending machines at King's Cross and other London Termini was considered in 1927, but the proposal was abandoned as the Companies concerned insisted on the payment of rentals to which I could not see my way to agree.

Captain CROOKSHANK: 31.
asked the Postmaster-General whether, in the interests of the travelling public, he will open negotiations with all the railway companies at whose chief London and provincial stations there are neither post offices nor stamp-selling machines and endeavour to secure these facilities for travellers?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Telegrams can already be sent from the principal railway stations and stamps can be obtained at many bookstalls. There is no evidence of any such demand for additional postal facilities as would justify the heavy cost of opening Post Offices at the chief London and provincial stations, and in many cases the railway company have no space available. As indicated in my reply to another question by my hon. and gallant Friend, the difficulty in the way of installing stamp-selling machines lies in the fact that the railway companies are unwilling to agree to their installation except on payment of a rental.

Captain CROOKSHANK: Is it not the policy of the Post Office to anticipate public demands?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I have tried to arrange for the installing of these machines, but I am not prepared to accept the position that in order to secure
this particular measure of benefit for the public the Post Office ought to be asked to pay an exorbitant rent.

Mr. MACKINDER: Is the rent demanded by the railway company a nominal rent or a real rent?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I should require notice of that question. The rent varies in different cases.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

TREATMENT ALLOWANCES.

Mr. BELLAMY: 42.
asked the Minister of Pensions if he is aware that there are men undergoing treatment at the Ministry of Pensions Hospital, Maghull, Liverpool, who are receiving only the flat-rate pension for themselves, their wives and families, in lieu of treatment allowances as set out in Article 6 of the Royal Warrant of 1919, and what is the reason for the change; arid what provision, if any, is made for children born more than 280 days after the termination of active service, who are not eligible for pension allowances, and the wives and families of men married after the origin of the disability or after the termination of active service?


            The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS
            (Lieut.-Colonel Stanley)
          : There are in this Institution, I understand, a very few cases in the position stated. The special allowances referred to are, as my right hon. Friend has frequently stated, payable where, but only where, the patient has suffered loss by reason of his being prevented by the treatment from continuing to carry on a remunerative occupation. Each case is now, as it has been in the past, considered on its merits. In the few cases in question there has been no loss of earnings by reason of the men undergoing treatment at Maghull. On the contrary, they are definitely better off by the fact that their own maintenance during treatment is provided at public cost. There is in the circumstances no occasion for further special provision for their non-pensionable dependants.

Mr. BELLAMY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in many cases the pensioner's family have only the flat rate
pension as income while the pensioner is undergoing institutional treatment, and are therefore unable to obtain the necessities of life, and does not this fact Adversely affect the pensioner and retard his recovery; and will not the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of granting treatment allowances to all pensioners undergoing in-patient treatment?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: That does not apply 'at all. My information is that all are on a high pension, and the man is kept free at the public cost, while his pension goes to his family.

Mr. BELLAMY: As some of them are in receipt of 8s. and 10s. a week, does the right hon. Gentleman consider that a high pension?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: If the hon. Member will give me the information I shall be glad to have it.

Mr. COMPTON: 43.
asked the Minister of Pensions if he is aware that Form M.P.A.O. 45a is being sent to men in receipt of an award for 12 months and until further notice, and that the pensioner is asked to supply his unemployment insurance classification number, his book number, and the address of office where unemployment benefit is paid; the purpose of these inquiries; whether the Ministry of Pensions has altered the practice that pensions were granted on the degree of disablement as found by the medical board, irrespective of any question of employment; and if he will have these forms withdrawn and issue instructions that questions as to employment shall not be made?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension as to the nature of the form referred to, which is used only in cases where treatment allowances in lieu of pension are to be issued. As these allowances are issued only in cases where the man is found to be unable to work in consequence of a course of treatment, it is necessary to acquaint the Employment Exchange in order that the man's position in relation to the unemployment insurance scheme may be established during the period of his treatment. The form has no relevance to the assessment of disablement pension, and the latter part of the question does not, therefore, arise.

Mr. COMPTON: Is it not a fact that these forms are issued with the object of assessing a life pension, and that employment should not be taken into consideration, but merely the effect of the injury which a man has suffered?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: No, Sir, it has nothing whatever to do with it. This is merely a case where a man is undergoing treatment and is entitled to treatment allowance, and it is for the benefit of the man that he shall not lapse from the insurance benefits by reason of his not having paid in.

Mr. COMPTON: The case I have in mind is directly opposed to the case mentioned by the Minister. May I see him in his room?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: Certainly.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRAQ (HIGH COMMISSIONER).

Viscount SANDON: 44.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the statement of the retiring High Commissioner in Iraq as to the difficulties of some conflicting interests in the dual position of that post and consul-general being held by one man, the two offices will be separated?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): My right hon. Friend is not satisfied that there is any present need for the separation of the two offices to which the Noble Lord refers.

Viscount SANDON: Does not this mean that the right hon. Gentleman is in conflict with the British High Commissioner?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: No. This suggestion is a matter for consideration, but it would obviously involve the creation of a new office at considerable expense to the taxpayer and it is not considered desirable at present.

Viscount SANDON: Does it work out as an expense when it is a question of benefiting our trade?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I do not think that that arises. The High Commissioner in Bagdad can exercise the functions of consul-general in that place.

Captain CAZALET: Are not our merchants at a disadvantage as compared with the merchants of other countries who have consular representatives in that country?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The High Commissioner always has held this office, and he is in a position to he consulted on trade matters like any other consul-general.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALL-ENGLISH BEER (DUTY).

Captain FAIRFAX: 45.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has considered, or will consider, granting such a rebate on the Beer Duty in the case only of beer brewed from home-grown barley and hops as, taken in conjunction with the rating relief of breweries, will admit of a reduction in the retail selling price of a penny a pint on such beer?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer which I returned on 13th December last to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Colonel Howard-Bury). It must be remembered that to reduce the price of beer by 1d. per pint would cost some £26,000,000, whereas the brewers' rating relief is something less than £400,000.

Captain. FAIRFAX: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that the cost. would be £26,000,000 to reduce the duty on beer made from home-grown barley and hops alone?

Mr. CHURCHILL: My answer covers the whole of the beer.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what the cost, would be for beer brewed from homegrown barley and hops?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I certainly can if the question is nut on the Paper.

Mr. HURD: Has the right hon. Gentleman had an opportunity of appreciating the value of all-English beer, of which I believe a sample has been sent to him?

Mr. CHURCHILL: A sample has reached me, and I am going to address myself to it.

Mr. SHINWELL: Is that the reason why the right hon. Gentleman rang the alarm bell last week?

Oral Answers to Questions — BETTING DUTY.

Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKE: 46.
asked the Chancellor the Exchequer if, in view of the continued evasion of the Betting Duty and the revenue therefrom being less than was estimated, he will consider the advisability of instituting a scheme of graded licence charges for the present ad valorem tax?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am giving my close attention to this and other aspects of the Betting Duty, but I am unable at present to make any statement on the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — BANK RATE.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 47.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is and has been the practice with regard to consultations by the Governor of the Bank of England with himself or his Treasury officials when it is proposed to alter the Bank Rate.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Decisions in regard to alteration of the Bank Rate are taken by the Bank of England on its sole responsibility. It has frequently been the practice of the Governor in post-War times to inform the Chancellor when a proposal to alter the rate is about to be considered.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Am I to understand that this information is only given as a matter of courtesy?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I much prefer to stick to the wording of my answer.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Has the right hon. Gentleman any means of insisting upon consultation?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I should not dream of giving an answer defining the relations between the Treasury and the Bank of England in reply to a supplementary question.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is there any secrecy about the matter?

Mr. CHURCHILL: There is no secrecy about the matter. For years the sole
responsibility for alterations in the Bank rate has rested with the Governor and Court of the Bank of England.

Oral Answers to Questions — CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.

Mr. W. BENNETT: 49.
asked the Minister of Health the number of widows who received pensions under the Act of 1925 on the condition that they had children under 14 years of age; and the number of such widows who have since ceased to receive pensions because their children have reached the statutory period of six months after the age of 14, to the latest date available, in England and Wales and in Scotland, respectively?

Major Sir GEORGE HENNESSY (Treasurer of the Household): I have been asked to reply. Up to 31st December, 1928, the latest date for which the information is available, 116,584 widows in England and Wales, whose title depended on there being children under the age of 14, had been granted pensions, and of these widows, 25,208 had ceased to be entitled because their children had reached the age of 14½ As regards the position in Scotland, a question should be addressed to the 'Secretary of State, for Scotland.

Oral Answers to Questions — POOR LAW RELIEF (INSURED PERSONS).

Sir J. POWER: 50.
asked the Minister of Health the number of insured persons in receipt of poor relief at the latest date and for a year previously?

Sir G. HENNESSY: It is presumed that the question refers to persons insured under the Unemployment Insurance Acts who received relief during unemployment. On this basis the average number during December, 1928, was 70,547, and during December, 1927, 104,406.

Oral Answers to Questions — IMPORTED TINNED CREAM.

Mr. LAMB: 51.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the increasing sale of tinned imported sterilised cream which contains less than 25 per cent. of butter fat as against 50 per cent. of butter fat in fresh cream; whether he has had any tests made of the food value of such imported sterilised cream, and, if so, with what
results; whether he has noted cases where imported sterilised cream is being sold as rich dairy cream; and whether he is taking any steps to bring the matter to the notice of local authorities with a view to their instituting prosecutions in ally case where the public interest is being prejudiced by such sales?

Sir G. HENNESSY: My right hon. Friend is aware that imported tinned cream usually contains a substantially lower percentage of milk fat than much of the fresh cream sold in this country. My right hon. Friend has not had any tests made of the relative nutritive values of various kinds of cream, as he is advised that the nutritive value varies directly with the fat content of the cream. My right hon. Friend's attention has not hitherto been drawn to the sale of imported sterilised cream as rich dairy cream. He has no reason to suppose that food and drugs authorities are unaware of the facts as to the fat content of tinned cream, but in the absence of any legal standard for cream, it appears doubtful whether proceedings could be successfully taken under the Food and Drugs (Adulteration) Act in such cases as those to which my hon. Friend refers.

Mr. HURD: Will the Minister ask the Food Council to consider not alone the prices of commodities but also food values as bearing upon prices?

Sir G. HENNESSY: I will convey the hon. Member's request to my right hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

BENEFIT CLAIMS, CARMARTHEN,

Mr. KELLY: 54.
asked the Minister of Labour whether it is a settled practice that in connection with claims for unemployment benefit which are referred to a court of referees in Carmarthen the claimants have at attend 'before a court in another district; will he state the reason; and whether, in view of the fact that a local court in Carmarthen must have better knowledge of the local circumstances to enable it to come to a just decision, he will consider the advisability of altering the practice in that area?

Mr. BETTERTON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the nega-
tive. Four courts were held at Carmarthen in January, and as far as practicable local cases are heard there. It is not always possible, however, to arrange this without holding up eases unduly.

Mr. KELLY: In view of the long distances which people have to travel in many parts of the country in order to appear before a court of referees, could the hon. Member see his way to make an increase in the number of the courts of referees?

Mr. BETTERTON: I think that is quite unnecessary. Where the applicant has to travel any distance to a court his train fare is paid, and courts are arranged for in the localities which are most convenient to claimants.

Mr. MARDY JONES: Is it not a fact that in this particular county the distances are very great, that the train services and omnibus services are inadequate, and that men spend a whole day in attending the court?

Mr. BETTERTON: I am not aware that the train services are inadequate. As I have said before, where a train journey has to be made the expenses of the claimant are paid.

Major PRICE: Would the hon. Member make a special inquiry into the conditions in this county and in the county of Pembrokeshire? The train services are awkward, and payment of train or omnibus fares only meets a part of the expense to which these men are put, because sometimes they are away from home for 12 hours.

Mr. BETTERTON: I did make a special inquiry, at the request of the hon. and gallant Member himself, and the result of my inquiry was that I thought there was no substantial case for an alteration of the existing arrangements.

Major PRICE: To my personal knowledge there are many cases in which—

HON. MEMBERS: Speech!

Mr. W. THORNE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, over and above the expenses allowed for travelling, anything is allowed for food?

Mr. BETTERTON: I should require notice of that question.

NEW MEMBER SWORN.

George William Shield, esquire, for County of Northumberland (Wansbeck Division).

CIVIL AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS (ESTIMATES, 1929).

Estimate presented, for Civil and Revenue Departments for the year ending 31st March, 1930, with Memorandum [by Command]; Referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed.

CIVIL AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1929 (VOTE ON ACCOUNT).

Estimate presented, showing the several Services for which a Vote on Account is required for the year ending 31st March, 1930 [by Command]; Referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE A.

Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added the following fifteen Members to Standing Committee A (in respect of the Reconstituted Cream Bill): Colonel Applin, Mr. Barnes, Mr. Barr, Mr. Everard, Captain Gunston, Mr. Lamb, Major MacAndrew, Sir Douglas Newton, Mr. Riley, Lieut.-Colonel Ruggles-Brise, Mrs. Runciman, Mr. Smith-Carington, The Solicitor-General for Scotland, Mr. W. M. Watson, and Sir Kingsley Wood.

Report to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (METHODIST CHURCH UNION BILLS) (SELECT COMMITTEE).

Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had nominated the following three Members to serve on the Select Committee on the Methodist Church Union Bills: Sir Henry Buckingham, Sir Samuel Roberts, and Mr. Tomlinson.

Report to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

CIVIL ESTIMATES, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1928.

CLASS II.

DOMINION SERVICES.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £70,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1929, for sundry Dominion Services, including a Grant-in-Aid, for advances in certain cases on account of liabilities assumed by the Government of the Irish Free State in connection with Compensation for Damage to Property or with Land Purchase, for certain ex-gratia Grants, and for Expenditure in connection with Ex-Service Men in the Irish Free State.

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Amery): In bringing forward this Supplementary Estimate, it may be convenient to the Committee if I remind hon. Members, first of all, of the circumstances which have led to a Supplementary Estimate and which led to the original ex-gratia grants to which this Supplementary Estimate is an addition. In dealing with the general body of Irish loyalists in respect of the injuries which they sustained, whether pre-truce or post-truce, whether dealt with by ordinary process of law or by a tribunal specially set up for that purpose, His Majesty's Government have already made very substantial payments entirely outside this Vote, and they have, in one way or another, paid something like £8,000,000. When consideration is also taken of those payments which the Irish Free State Government have made, the total which the Irish loyalists will have received in one way or another will amount to something like £10,000,000.
The case which we have to deal with to-day concerns post-truce injuries only. We have had to consider what is due to those who stood by us in very dark times. Of course, the Free State Government are primarily respon-
sible for the post-truce cases. But I need not remind the Committee of the terrible difficulties which that Government had to contend with in the first year or more of its existence. Our responsibility to the Irish loyalists has been admitted by successive Governments of every political complexion, and it is was our duty to see that those who suffered by what followed the setting up of the Irish Free State should receive some equitable measure of consideration.
Accordingly, in 1926 the Government asked a Committee, under the Chairmanship of Lord Dunedin, to advise them how they could best fulfil the general terms of the pledges given to the loyalists in connection with their post-truce injuries. That Committee reported that there were two possible ways of dealing with the problem. One was to deal with it from the purely legal point of view, assuming that the pre-truce legal situation had continued, to discover by legal methods what compensation would have been due to those people if the pre-truce compensation law had been effective, and then to pay them the difference between what they actually received and what they would have been entitled to on that basis. The Committee pointed out that this method of dealing with the matter, although it might afford substantial compensation to many of them, would leave entirely out of account many injuries which were not such as to entitle to any form of compensation under the law. They recommended, therefore, that in order to secure substantial equity we should not attempt any legal assessment of injuries, but that the Government should by ex-gratia payment and as a matter of executive action, deal on a broad basis with the whole of the disturbed situation which existed in Ireland, and set aside whatever sum it was considered reasonable to allot as fairly as possible in proportion to the injuries of the loyalists concerned.
There was no question of setting up an independent tribunal, but Lord Dunedin's Committee did suggest that it would be of great assistance in distributing whatever sum was set aside for that purpose if the Government could have the advice in investigating the cases put before it of a competent committee. Consequently, we took advantage of the unique experience
of Sir Alexander Wood Renton, who had been the Chairman of the previous Judicial Tribunal in Ireland, and of such colleagues as Sir James Brunyate and Sir John Oakley, who assisted him, in order that they might sift the cases, and make such recommendations as they thought the equity of the cases demanded, leaving it to the Government, and the Government alone, to come to a decision as to what compensation they should give. I have seen and heard a good deal lately about the refusal of the Government to honour the awards of the Tribunal which the Government had set up. Let me remind the Committee that there never was a tribunal and there have been no awards. There has been an Advisory Committee whose work has been done on the lines suggested by the Dunedin Committee.
In the investigations of this Advisory Committee, there were none of the precautions which obtain in the working of a legal tribunal. There was no taking of evidence in a formal sense, and they proceeded by informal methods and not as a legal tribunal. It would be impossible for any Government to take the view that it could be bound to an unlimited expenditure by the recommendations of a tribunal constituted in that manner. On the other hand, I must make it clear, in fairness to the Committee, that they were never asked to scale down their recommendations to the amount of any sum which the Government might lay down; they were never asked to anticipate the decision of the Government or to correlate their recommendations to any sum which was likely to be available. They made their recommendations on the merits of each case as they went along, leaving to the Government, and the Government alone, the responsibility for deciding what, in view of all the claims upon them, would be a fair total to allot to- this particular and undoubtedly very deserving class of cases. On the information before us in the summer of 1926, we believed, though no public statement was ever made to this effect, that a sum of something like £400,000 would be sufficient reasonably to meet the whole of these claims. By the end of the following year, we realised that a payment in full of the first £250 and a graduated scale afterwards would involve us in an expenditure of something like £625,000,
and that was the figure announced to Parliament in December of that year. Then further information came, both from the loyalist sufferers themselves and from their friends in this House, who have stood by them and worked for them with a perseverance which I think deserves every credit, and for which we in the Government, who have sometimes had to resist their appeals, do not in the least bear them any grudge. On the contrary, we are only glad that they have helped to bring out the facts of this very difficult situation.
In view of all the facts, the Government, in February last, came to the decision that they were prepared, as a final sum, to give a total of £1,000,000 with which to cover any recommendations that might be made. I made it quite clear to the House at the time that the Government regarded that £1,000,000 as the final clearing off of their obligation in this matter, and they were not prepared to find more, or in any way to commit themselves to an unlimited payment in full of the recommendations of the Wood Renton Committee, whatever those recommendations might be. I expressed at the same time the hope, and more than the hope, I fully admit—the confident expectation—that that £1,000,000 would make it possible to pay the whole of the recommendations in full, or very nearly. That expectation has been falsified. I in no way blame our advisers for the fact that their estimates have been exceeded. In a matter of this kind, it is quite impassible, from any number of preceding instances, to deduce what proportion of new claims are likely to be admitted at all, or what proportion of the claims made are likely to receive substantial recommendation. The whole situation was so novel and so anomalous that it would have been impossible really to make any reliable estimates beforehand. Nevertheless, on the facts before our advisers at the time, their estimates were not so far amiss. If we had only had to deal with the cases before the Committee in the middle of February last, I believe that my original expectation that £1,000,000 would not only cover what I then described as interim payments of the first £1,000 in full and 60 per cent of the rest, but would have substantially made it possible to pay the recommendations in full.
The new fact that falsified our calculations was due to the very earnestness of the endeavour of hon. Friends of mine in this House to see that no class of those who suffered through these disturbances should fall outside the scope of our assistance. I was pressed very strongly by hon. Friends of mine in this House to keep in mind the fact that there was a very considerable number of sufferers in Ireland whose cases had not been sent in to the Grants Committee in time, and that it was unfair to those individuals that the receipt of applications should be closed at the end of January, 1927; and, in deference to their very strong appeal, the Government agreed that the final date for the sending in of applications should be postponed to the end of February, 1928. Contrary to the information which hon. Members themselves supplied to me, and that which we were able to glean through our own sources of intelligence, the number of new cases that came in was far larger than was ever anticipated. Something like 1,100 new claims, an increase of 35 per cent., or more than one-third, of the total previously sent in, were submitted before the end of February of last year. Moreover, again contrary to expectations, the proportion of these claims which were genuine claims of undoubted distress and hardship was considerable.
4.0 p.m.
The admission of these new claims has affected the situation, and it has inevitably to some extent affected the share of the £1,000,000 which would have been available to those who had applied at an earlier date. I think the Committee will realise that it might have been perfectly possible for the Government to have maintained their previous attitude at the date of the discussion in the House last February, and to have refused to re-open the question of the date at which applications could be sent in; and I believe that my hon. Friends, though with regret, would still have accepted that situation. If so, they would, obviously, have had very little case for complaint that we were not fulfilling in the fullest sense of the word any expectation that we had raised before this House, and, still more, any promise. I would ask whether, as a matter of substantial equity, it would have been better had we left the list closed where it was, and enabled those
who had put in their applications earlier to get a larger proportion of the recommendations made, or whether, in fact, it has not been fairer and better all round that the £1,000,000 should be extended to a somewhat larger number of claims?
Let me sum up the position as it stands to-day. The total number of cases submitted to the Committee for their consideration and recommendation has been 4,030. Of these cases, they have dealt with 3,175, leaving 855 cases still undealt with. In respect of the 3,175 cases which they have dealt with, they have made recommendations in favour of 1,637. Of these 1,354, namely 83 per cent. of the total, have received, or are in process of receiving, the full amount recommended by the Wood Renton Committee, and another 12 per cent. have received between 75 and 99 per cent, of the recommendations of the Committee, leaving only 5 per cent. to receive less than 75 per cent. All of them, obviously, from the nature of the case, must receive over 60 per cent. We have in connection with these grants already paid over the £1,000,000 which we laid down as the final amount, but when the Government took into consideration the fact that it was definitely announced that all recommendations up to £1,000 should be met in full, and 60 per cent. on all recommendations above that sum, they felt that they could not scale that down again to come within the maximum. Therefore, whatever the amount involved in fulfilling that scale, even although it may considerably exceed the £1,000,000, we shall certainly do it. In fact, we have already paid a total, including this supplementary Estimate, of £1,062,000. I reminded the Committee at the beginning that, in one form or another, Irish loyalists will have received altogether something like £10,000,000.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is that to loyalists alone, or is it in respect of damage done by our troops?

Mr. AMERY: I am glad my hon. and gallant Friend has reminded me. The total which will have been expended in Ireland in one way and another by the two Governments will not be far off £15,000,000, but the total amount which the loyalists will have received, mainly from the British Government, but also
some of it from the Free State, amounts to £10,000,000.

Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: Was the £5,000,000 difference for damage done by British troops?

Mr. AMERY: Payments made by the Free State Government, not only for the damage done by British troops, hut also damage suffered by adherents of the Free State Government in the course of the Rebellion. I would not claim for a moment that this sum has covered, or could cover, every case of hardship or suffering which took place during those dark years. No money compensation could cover a great measure of the sufferings, and no scale of money compensation any Government could find could fail to leave outside a great number of serious and sometimes heart-breaking cases. In no great cataclysm has any country in history ever treated more generously those who sacrificed themselves in the national cause in a great war than we did in the late War, yet there is not one of us but knows case after case of tragic disaster which none of the generous measures of relief afforded by the Government have wholly satisfied. The same is equally true in our domestic situation. No country as a whole has ever done so much to deal with the distress caused by industrial upheaval or economic breakdown, and yet we all know how many hard cases are inevitably left out. Therefore, I would plead with the Committee that, taking into account all the calls which the British Government have to face, the amount which we are now asking the Committee to grant is one which we hope the Committee will sanction as a generous endeavour to meet the tragedy which so many homes have suffered in Ireland, and also to support us in regarding this measure of assistance as sufficient in view of the obligations of the Government in so many directions.

Colonel GRETTON: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £10.
I agree that many cases have been left out even under the terms of compensation for Irish loyalists by Votes given in this House, and more emphatically I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that no money payments can compensate some of these unfortunate people for all that they have suffered and gone through. But the cause of my rising is
that the right hon. Gentleman has now put proposals before the Committee which fall, as I think, very short of the equity of the case. He did not tell us by how much he estimated that the payment of full compensation would exceed £1,000,000. I contend, however, that this is not a matter of precise calculation of money payment. It is a matter of equity and of dealing justly with these unfortunate people. Last year the matter was left in some doubt, at any rate in our view as to whether this £1,000,000 would meet everything which the right hon. Gentleman at that time confidently expected it would do, and if his expectations fall short of the fact, then we are entitled to raise the case again, as we do to-day.
The right hon. Gentleman has very fairly stated to the Committee the full awards, because, after all, they are awards; they have all been accepted by the Government. It is a mere quibble, if I -may say so. The right hon. Gentleman and the Chancellor of the Exchequer—I will not trouble the Committee with unnecessary quotations—both bore testimony to the fact that the recommendations of the Irish Grants Committee have been met with due regard to the interests of the public, and they certainly do not err on the side of generosity. That being so, what is the use of continuing to tell the Committee, the Irish loyalists and the public outside that these are not awards, but only recommendations. They are recommendations, of course, in the sense that the Government may accept them or not, and admittedly they are not going to accept them in a substantial number of cases. The right hon. Gentleman stated last year:
That decision involved an increase…Subsequent closer scrutiny has convinced us that the cases of the most grievous hardship and suffering are by no means confined to those where small claims have been made or where small awards have been recommended.
And so they extended the amount. That is exactly our position to-day. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say:
Any drastic scaling down of their recommendations would undoubtedly involve quite unmerited hardship in many cases, and would frustrate the clear and often repeated purpose of the Government.
How can a scaling down of 40 per cent. in amounts above £1,000 be described
as less than drastic? It is a very drastic scaling down in some cases, and a less drastic scaling down where the amount exceeds £1,000 by a comparatively small sum. So that the right hon. Gentleman acknowledged the whole of our case last year in that respect. He proceeded to Say:
We have decided, therefore…to allot a sum of £1,000,000, which we believe will be sufficient to enable us to carry out those recommendations in full, or at the very worst will involve only a slightly smaller allocation in respect of the larger recommendations. In the meantime, in order to meet the urgent needs of many claimants, we have decided that all recommendations up to £1,000 shall be met in full at once, and a 60 per cent. interim payment made on all recommendations above that sum."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd February, 1928; cols. 1908–9, Vol. 213.]
That is our case, and that was taken to be the intention of the British Government. Who thought at any time of questioning the word of the British Government when they expressed a belief that this £1,000,000 would enable all payments to be met in full? The right hon. Gentleman claimed, in the statement he has just made, that the sum which was required to meet all payments in full has been very much increased, owing to the concession which he readily and freely gave last year that the date of the claims should be extended for a week or two beyond 31st January last year, on account of the late claims.

Sir HARRY FOSTER: What was the date?

Mr. AMERY: The original date was 31st January, 1927, and the new date 28th February, 1928.

Colonel GRETTON: The right hon. Gentleman was speaking on 23rd February, and he knew what the claims were to be, or he could approximately estimate what the claims were to be at that date. I would also remind him that he made that concession in response to an hon. Friend on my side of the House. He made the statement after he made the concession, so that the whole facts were before his mind. Therefore, I do not think it is quite a good or a solid argument for him to say that it is the fault of me or of some of my hon. Friends that a large amount of compensation is being sealed down from that recommended by the Irish Grants Com-
mittee. I still have some hope that we may be able to convince the Government to-day that their cause is not a good one, and that they are doing a vast injury. They themselves said, in the course of Debate last year, that many of the people in Ireland, in expectation of an award or a recommendation by the British Government, have been obliged to borrow money from the banks in order to pay their way, and have had to pay interest on this money and so increase their difficulties. The sums which they believed to be due to them or that they were likely to get were on the scale of the recommendations that had been made. What is the position? In many cases the proposed reductions will not enable the persons who are to receive these payments to pay off all their indebtedness, and in other cases, where it is enough to enable them to pay off their indebtedness, it will do no more. They will have nothing with which to start life again, nothing with which to move into another country to start again, and nothing for the education of their children. They will be left destitute in the world. That is a most deplorable condition of things. I do not believe that my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench realise the amount of misery and suffering which they are going to cause by this decision announced in the Committee to-day.
I will put this matter on a higher plane, if I can. Again and again, the British Government, and this Government too, have declared that they realised their moral obligations and that they were going to fulfil their moral obligations. They have set up their own form of tribunal. It is outside the case to say that they were not having legal investigations and all that kind of thing. They set up a kind of tribunal which they intended should make recommendations and which they constantly said had acted to their satisfaction, and whose work they have constantly praised. The Committee now are asked to sanction and approve the Government doing less than they themselves have undertaken to do. The Committee are to be parties to a very large measure of injustice. May I go further and say that in this matter the honour of the Government is at stake. They are the trustees and the custodians of the honour of the nation. I ask the Committee to support the case which I
have ventured quite briefly to sketch, and, in order to put the matter formally before the Committee, I am moving to reduce the Vote.

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton), who moved this Amendment, might have been surprised at the support which was given by Members on these benches to certain phrases of which he made use. He said that his complaint against the Government was their refusal to realise their moral obligation to people who were suffering through no fault of their own. That sentiment was cheered.

Colonel APPLIN: It is the direct action of the Government—a very different matter.

Mr. THOMAS: I should be sorry if even this Supplementary Estimate necessitated a rehash of Irish trouble. No good purpose would be served by it.

Mr. J. JONES: Why not? I stand up for Southern Ireland.

Mr. THOMAS: The reason I do not think any good purpose would be served is because no Debate can alter the existing situation in Ireland, and it may do harm and not good. I come back to point out to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that the very phrase he used was one that enables us to join with him in saying, "Yes, but that principle is applicable to hundreds of thousands of our own people in this country." These people, through no fault of their own, are denied the opportunity of educating their children or of even feeding themselves.

Mr. ERSKINE: What is the good of talking about that?

Mr. J. JONES: rose—

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) must allow the right hon. Gentleman to proceed.

Mr. JONES: I will, Sir, but I object to the interruptions. I have as much right to interrupt as the hon. Gentleman.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman's action prevents the right hon. Gentleman from being properly heard.

Mr. JONES: I express my regret, hut I object to the hon. Gentleman introducing himself into this Debate.

Mr. THOMAS: I shall not be diverted by my hon. Friend from the subject with which I am dealing. I want to say at once, that the argument used by the right hon. and gallant Member for Burton, in connection with his friends, is the very argument which we ourselves used and which we have been urging in connection with hundreds and thousands of our own people. I do not think anybody is in a fair position to judge as to the real merits of this case, for the reason that it is not sufficient to say that 85 per cent. of the award was conceded, or, in other cases, that a certain amount was conceded. The position cannot be conveyed to the Committee unless they have the original claim before them. Therefore, the Committee are really in the dark as to the actual merits of this case until they see that comparison.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: We are dealing, not with the original claim, but with the awards of the Wood Renton Committee.

Mr. THOMAS: I will answer the interruption of the hon. Gentleman. I have seen the claims and I have seen the awards, and I do not see how anybody could have the audacity to put in such claims when one compared them with the awards that were made. If we are going to have that side of it argued, let us face the facts. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer knows, because he has dealt with the matter before, claims were made which no Government could accept. There could be no justification for the claims made. Claims for £20,000 were, on investigation, scaled down to £1,000 or £2,000. Hon. Members who support this know it perfectly well. Therefore I say you cannot really judge as to the accuracy or otherwise of this question unless you have the whole of the individual evidence before you. I am personally delighted that the matter is settled. I said to my right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden): "I wonder what would have happened in this kind of Debate this afternoon if we had been sitting on the opposite side of the Committee." I frankly admit that there were grave cases. I know people who were persecuted on
all sides, and I know perfectly well that there was a great deal of bickering and suffering, but I am delighted to know that we are now in a position to say that there is some finality to this question.

Sir HENRY CAUTLEY: Let us settle it fairly.

Mr. THOMAS: If we are going to settle it fairly, I would remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that it will be very difficult to settle it with the information that is before us this afternoon.

Sir H. CAUTLEY: Why? We have the Committee's Report.

Mr. THOMAS: I know you have the Committee's Report, but you have not the circumstances, data, and facts on which the Committee reported. [An HON. MEMBER: "We trust the Committee."] At all events, we have heard the criticisms of the Government by supporters of the Government; we have heard all these appeals to justice and for fair play for one section of the community, and we say that we wish that same principle to be applied when we are dealing with other sections of the community. It cannot be urged that right hon. Gentlemen sitting on the Front Bench opposite are not the friends of those whose case has been pleaded here this afternoon. That, at least, cannot be urged against the Government. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is going to carry his Amendment to a Division. [HON MEMBERS: "Yes!"] Very well, he will have the opportunity of hearing our views on the broad principle, but I hope that when it comes to voting time his friends will not run away. In any case, we have the satisfaction of knowing that if the Government have given their final word the question is settled, and it will at least relieve us about June of dealing with the situation ourselves.

Major ROSS: I must admit that it is a matter of considerable surprise to me that these people, the loyalists of the post-truce period, should not have been paid to the full after the recommendations of the Wood Renton Committee. I think I would distinguish between their cases and the case of such people to whom the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) has alluded, be-
cause these people in Southern Ireland have suffered. They underwent these losses because they were trying to support the Government as at that time established by law. They were not supporting it by arms, but they were supporting it by conduct, and by not joining in an agitation against it. I am confident that if anyone, whether friends of hon. Members opposite or of hon. Members on this side of the Committee, suffered in such a manner we, at all events, should do our very utmost to see that they got justice and substantial justice. The position of the post-truce sufferers in Southern Ireland was peculiarly hard. They were exposed to every eye. They were well known at that time. The forces on which they used to rely were unable to help them. They had either gone away or could take no action. Those who were in charge of the administrative Government of Ireland, who had used every art for making government impossible, had as yet had no opportunity of knowing how to govern. They were up to then the enemies of the people who had stood for the connection with this country. The sufferings of these people were very considerable.
When we look at the census of Southern Ireland, as shown by the census figures of 1926, compared with the census figures of 1911, one very remarkable fact stands out, and that is, that the Protestant population of Southern Ireland—it is common knowledge that the Protestant population very generally coincides with the Unionist population, not precisely, but generally—has been reduced by approximately one-third. Over 100,000 Protestants have left Southern Ireland, the Free State, since 1911. Does not that show to us what these people have undergone? Whatever they may be paid and whatever they have been paid, is not accurately a return for what they have lost, and what they have suffered during a time of extreme anxiety. It was a terrible time through which they lived. It was terrible to lie awake at night listening for the footfall on the gravel outside which might mean the destruction of your home, or even worse.
These cases were investigated by the Wood Renton Committee, and the claims have been cut down. It has been suggested that the claims were exaggerated. I am confident that that is not
so as to the vast majority. I was rather distressed to hear the right hon. Member for Derby criticise the methods of the Wood Renton Committee by which they took evidence. As I understood his account of the Committee, he stated that it was not a legal Court and that it took its evidence in a rather loose way. He suggested to my mind something analogous to an inquest, in which the rules of evidence are not strictly applied. Surely, we must be guided by that Committee and by its findings. This debt, this obligation to the post-truce loyalists, is a national one. It was an admission of obligation, and these payments are ex-gratia. I know that everyone concerned with the payments is grateful not only to this Government but also to the Government of hon. Members opposite who, also, admitted their obligation to the Southern loyalists. As to how the obligation has been carried out, the present situation is very wrong and very bad. You cannot pay your friends a mere percentage, when you have paid your enemies in full. Very substantial payments were made to those who had suffered owing to the operations of the British troops and police in Southern Ireland, and were made in full. Are we now to say to our friends: Our enemies were paid in full. We will give you what we can spare"? Surely, that is wrong.
If the principle of payment exists, if there is this obligation, it is an obligation which should be honoured right up to the hilt. The percentage which has been paid is, no doubt, a high one, hut this is no case for percentages. You cannot adopt the principles of the Court of Bankruptcy in such a matter, because in the court of honour nothing less than 20s. in the £ can yield a good discharge. That is the case here. If there is this obligation, surely you cannot discriminate between the people to whom you owe it. I do not know exactly on what principle the right hon. Gentleman is discriminating. I do not know who get more and who get less. I suppose the larger claims have received a smaller proportion of the recommendation than others. That, surely, is wrong. A man undergoes risks by his loyalty and suffers. Is he to be put in a worse position than other people? Is the man who by the findings of the Committee has lost more than others, to be put in a worse position than the man whose risks and losses were slight?
I very much hope that it will be possible for the Government to reconsider their decision. I represent a constituency in Northern Ireland where we are proud of our connection with this sister island. There we are generally looked upon as the representatives of England, although, curiously enough, most of us are of Scottish descent. We are always proud of that connection, but if these people, whose only fault is their loyalty to this country and devotion to what they felt was the best way of the country being governed, are to be left to suffer in this way, I think we may, for once, have to blush.

Mr. MORRIS: I am sure that I shall be expressing the view of the great majority of the Members of the House when I say that we have listened with very great pleasure to the speech of the hon. Member for Londonderry (Major Ross) and that we shall look forward with pleasure to his future intervention in our Debates. The case as he put it seems to me to be the real case for this Vote. The Government has recognised that they have certain obligations to carry out with regard to the Irish loyalists. Into the general position in Ireland no one would desire to enter at this stage. The obligation has been recognised and, once having been recognised, it becomes the duty of the Government to discharge the full obligation. As the right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) said, we are discussing this matter in the dark. We do not know exactly on what principle the Government are exercising their discrimination, upon what basis they select certain claims and reject others, or how they have decided what proportion of the claims shall be paid. There can be only one proper discharge of this case and that is by the payment of 20s. in the pound.
The Terms of Reference of the Irish Grants Committee excluded a number of cases that ought to have been included—very hard cases, where men had lost their property in precisely the same, way that the people who come within the Terms of Reference lost their property. The Terms of Reference were limited to those people who had suffered loss between the 11th July, 1921, and the 12th May, 1923. The Irish Grants Committee have so interpreted the Terms of Reference that
a number of hard cases where men have lost the whole of their property prior to July, 1921, have been excluded. I have particulars of a case in my hands where a man lost property to the value of £2,500, but the loss fell on the 1st April, 1921, just two months before the date fixed by the Terms of Reference. I would suggest that the Irish Grants Committee should extend its interpretation of the Terms of Reference or, if they will not do so, that the right hon. Gentleman in the exercise of his jurisdiction should say that the remaining part of the Terms of Reference should be used in interpreting the terms when dealing with these cases. The Terms of Reference go on to say:
being destruction or injuries of such a nature as would have given rise to a claim for compensation under the enactments relating to compensation for criminal or malicious injuries in force in the area of the Irish Free State prior to the last-mentioned date"—
that is, the 12th May, 1923—
or who have otherwise suffered special hardship and loss on account of such support as aforesaid.
The support must be given before the 11th July, 1921. The special hardship must be prior to that date.
A number of cases which occurred prior to the 11th July, 1921, ought to have been included. Why should they be excluded because the loss fell on the 1st April? The loss was incurred in exactly the same way as the loss in the other cases.
Once the obligation has been admitted that these people should be compensated, there can be no justification for drawing a line at some arbitrary date in July, 1921. Either we should compensate the whole lot or compensate no one. I could understand the Government saying when the cases came up for the first time, "We will compensate no one. We will allow the loss to rest where it falls. That would be, from the Government's point of view, a logical case, but the Government have chosen another path. They have said that they will compensate in respect of losses incurred in a specific way between certain dates. Once they have admitted the obligation to compensate, they ought to compensate for the whole of the losses incurred in a specific way, and not exclude losses because they fell before a specially
selected date. Once having embarked upon the path of meeting the claims, the Government ought to meet the losses in respect of the date on which the losses fell.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: It seems to me that the Government have to look for support from the other side of the House. Their own supporters and the Liberal party are out to do what they can for the honour of this country. It is to-day a question of the honour of this country that is at stake. The Government entered into a definite obligation. They recognised that, owing to the withdrawal of their troops and the withdrawal of their police, after the country had been in a state of insurrection for many months; by the withdrawal of their forces for keeping law and order, they left the loyalists at the mercy of a country which had not had time to start a police force or an army. That was the cause of the greatest part of the damage that has been done. Governments, one after the other, from 1922 onwards, including the Government of hon. Members opposite, realised their obligation. Lord Arnold, when the Labour Government was in power, said:
The present Government in this whole question are adhering to the policy followed by their predecessors.
In 1922, the British Government said that they could not divest themselves of the duty of seeing that compensation claims in respect of injured persons and property were equitably met. Can we say that a claim has been equitably met when the Government are paying only 60 per cent. of the claim awarded by a Committee set up by the Government to go most carefully into the matter? The Chancellor of the Exchequer realised this and said that the Dunedin Committee had found
that the Government should take definite steps to alleviate to the best of their ability such injuries in cases where compensation had either not been given or had been less than equitable.
The right hon. Gentleman further said:
The position of many of the complainants was such that uncertainty as to the final awards was in itself involving hardship."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th February, 1928; cols. 1197–98, Vol. 213.]
We were told last year that this 60 per cent. was an interim payment. That means that there is something else to follow. People who had been given an
award expected, when they received that interim payment, that they were going to receive the full amount and, therefore, they were able to borrow from their bank sufficient money to rebuild their house or re-stock their land. Now, suddenly, they are to be let down by the Government, who say that they are only going to pay the 60 per cent.; not the remaining 40 per cent. That is not treatment. Last February, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said this:
The recommendations of the Irish Grants Committee cannot be considered excessive.
The right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) has talked about the claims which were put in. No doubt many claims of all kinds put in, but no one has ever said that the Irish Grants Committee has not done its work very thoroughly indeed. The claims may have been large but they have all been carefully considered, and the result is that they have been cut down considerably. I did not quite like the remark of the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs when he said that he looked upon this Committee as a non-judicial body. To all intents and purposes it was a Committee set up by the Government to investigate these matters. It has taken evidence with the greatest care possible; it has tried to avoid expense in bringing over large numbers of witnesses, but, even so, the expense which these unfortunate people have been called upon to bear has been considerable indeed in many cases, and only a very small proportion of that expense has been taken into account by the Irish Grants Committee.
The Secretary of State took credit to himself that the period had been extended. It was only right that the period should be extended. In many cases claims were put in too late. When you get far into the wilds of Kerry, 20 miles from a railway station, you do not expect the news of the Irish Grants Committee or the Wood Renton Committee to penetrate as quickly as such news would travel from town to town in England. The conditions in the far west of Ireland, where the Protestants were isolated, are very different to conditions in England, and it was only right and fair that the period of time should be extended. It should have been extended much further. The Irish Grants Committee was limited
by the Terms of Reference. If an outrage occurred a week or ten days before the period which the Committee had to take into account it was ruled out. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us that the first £1,000 was to be paid in full, and in the case of any excess over this figure 60 per cent. would be advanced on account immediately.
"On account," again, is part payment. The right hon. Gentleman intended us to believe that more was coming. He has misled these unfortunate people. The Secretary of State for the Dominions believed that £1,000,000 would be sufficient to cover the whole amount of the damage, but time after time his permanent advisers have been wrong. They told him, first, that £400,000 would be sufficient, then that £625,000 would be sufficient, and then that £1,000,000 would be sufficient; and every time they have found themselves to be wrong. They have tried to minimise the amount of damage and have not faced the realities of the position. It is not the fault of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that he has put in these various estimates. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has talked at out not facing an "indefinite liability.' What happened with regard to the payments made for the damage (lore by our troops? Payment was made in full. There was no question of an indefinite liability, and payment was made without the careful investigation which those claims have had to go through. I know a case where a house built many years ago at a cost of about £1,000 was burnt down because it was the centre of sedition, and the British Government willingly paid out £30,000 as compensation. What would have happened 'f this had been the house of a loyalist? The Irish Grants Committee would probably have cut the amount down to £5,000, and under present conditions all the owner would receive would be £3,400.
Up to now this has not been regarded as a party question. All parties have been in agreement as to the liability of the British Government. The right hon. Gentleman has not told us the actual amount which will be required to pay these awards in full, but I imagine that it is not a large sum. It is only a matter of £300,000, at the outside £400,000; and it does not mean that it will necessarily
come up for payment this year. Claims are coming in all the time. It can be paid partly this year and partly next year. It is not a large amount; and this country is not yet bankrupt. I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman will ever publish the records of the Irish Grants Committee. If he did so I am sure that they would contain stories of suffering and misery which would harrow the whole country. The unfortunate loyalists are scattered, they do not command too many votes, and to-day, unfortunately, it is often a question of expediency, not a question of right. I appeal to the Government to honour these awards in full and to do the right and fair thing. Let us have no more of this petty, niggardly haggling that has been going on. It is unworthy of the British Government.

Mr. J. JONES: I am an Irishman and sympathise most sincerely with my comrades in distress. I wish that sympathy could be extended to all Irishmen instead of the few who are spoken of as loyalists. What do hon. Members opposite mean by the term "loyalists"? Are those Irishmen who stand by their own country, and refuse to surrender themselves body and soul to the supremacy of another Government, who dominate the situation by force of arms to be called disloyal? I have travelled through Northern and Southern Ireland in recent years—I am coming to the financial aspect later. The figures which trouble me are the figures in the streets, not those in the accounts. I want hon. Members opposite to realise that they are making a great mistake when they try to separate the people of Ireland into loyalists and disloyalists. That is the intention. If you travel from Dundalk to Youghal, in the extreme south, you will find at almost every four cross-roads a cross marking the spot where men were brought out and shot. What for? For being loyal to their own country.

The CHAIRMAN: I must remind the hon. Member that, while this is a very important matter, it is the very limited subject as to whether certain grants which have been awarded are sufficient or otherwise.

Mr. JONES: I was referring to the fact that the loyalists in Ireland were separated from the rest of Ireland, and
pointing out that as far as Ireland is concerned 75 per cent. of the people believe in an Irish Parliament and an Irish State.

The CHAIRMAN: That has nothing to do with this particular matter. The whole question is whether these people have had proper compensation or not.

Mr. JONES: Yes, but I want, most emphatically, to protest against the overwhelming majority of my countrymen being called disloyal in this House. They have accepted a Treaty with this country, signed by the responsible authorities in this House, and the right hon. Gentleman opposite was one of the parties to that Treaty; and at the beginning of my speech I was protesting against the overwhelming majority of my countrymen being called disloyal. The hon. and gallant Member who moved the Amend-merit himself recognised that there is only 40 per cent. difference between the amount allowed by the Government and the amount recommended by the Committee. Let him give the £400,000 which the brewers have had from the Government and the financial problem is solved. He will not do that.. I want to point out that there are other parts of Ireland besides the South where people have been badly treated.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must not go into the whole Irish question. The point here is that this Committee has reported on the grievance of certain people and has awarded compensation. It is now urged that the compensation offered is not sufficient. That is the whole question before the Committee.

Mr. JONES: I quite appreciate that fact, but it is almost impossible for anyone to keep within the four corners of the Vote now before the Committee. I want to point out that while hon. Members opposite are talking about the loyalists in Southern Ireland nothing is said about the minority in Northern Ireland. Their houses have been burnt over their heads, they have been sent to prison without trial, but they have no compensation at all.

The CHAIRMAN: I must ask the hon. Member to keep to the point of the Supplementary Estimate; otherwise, I shall have to ask him to resume his seat.

Mr. JONES: I am only trying to point out the difference in the treatment between the two parts of Ireland. The curse is that Ireland, has been divided into two parts. All the problems in this House are concentrated in the South of Ireland. Northern Ireland any rights at all?

The CHAIRMAN: if the hon. Member will not keep to the matter of the Supplementary Estimate, I shall have to ask him to resume his seat.

Mr. JONES: I will try and do so. My remarks, so far, were only illustrating the general situation. The point is that, while people who owned big houses have got compensation, workmen who have lost their employment, have had no compensation at all.
5.0 p.m.
In Southern Ireland houses have been destroyed, property has been destroyed, and men have been thrown out of work, and the owners of the property have received compensation while the men who have lost their employment have got nothing at all. Am I not entitled to say that, Mr. Hope? All the hon. Members who have spoken upon this matter have dealt with the question of compensation, but not for the working man. He receives no compensation of any kind. He simply has to grin and hear it. I am prepared to give justice to everybody, to the employer of labour as well as the working man, but I want to see equal treatment all round. Is any member of the Government prepared to tell us what compensation the working man, who was thrown out of employment as the result of the troubles in Southern Ireland during the period of distress, is going to receive? I will undertake to say that he is going to receive nothing whatever. As far as I, personally, am concerned, along with the rest of my party, though I do not know what the party is going to do—[Interruption]I am perfectly entitled to ask what the party opposite is going to do. They have to carry the baby—not we. It is not we who have made the row. It is hon. Members opposite.
Therefore, I suggest that the time has now arrived that we should get a definite statement as to what the party opposite is prepared to do. There is 40 per cent. between hon. Members opposite and the Government, but no compensation is to be given to these working men who have
suffered the most. You are compensating landlords representing Irish constituencies who only see Ireland in the hunting-field. They have put in their claims for thousands of pounds, but the working man who who has to work for his living in Ireland gets nothing at all. There are some hon. Members sitting on the benches opposite who hold estates in Ireland, and because their houses were burnt down or some attack was made upon them, they are putting in claims for thousands of pounds compensation, and they are grumbling because they are getting only 60 per cent. But the men who are out of work do not get 60 per cent., they simply get the "Order of the boot"; their name is "Walker." I ask, if money is going to be given, then the working men should get an equal chance with other people who claim that they must have something for the losses which they have incurred, but which are less than those of the working men.

Sir HARRY FOSTER: It is very rarely in these days that I take up any part of the valuable time of the House and I should not have risen on this occasion but for the gravity and the extreme urgency of the matter with which the Committee is called upon to deal. We have heard from the Secretary of State for the Dominions something, not all, as to the origin of the responsibility of the Government and of Britain in this matter. I want to remind the Committee of two or three very definite statements which were made by those in responsible positions in regard to the liability, even the legal liability, of the British nation towards those who, in consequence of being guilty of the crime of remaining loyal to their connection with this country, had all protection withdrawn from them and suffered in the way in which the Wood Renton Committee has decided by the awards they have issued. As long ago as 28th November, 1922, Lord Birkenhead, who, as hon. Members will doubtless remember, was one of the responsible negotiators of the Treaty, made this statement in the House of Lords, which led to a very important reply on the part of the Government. Lord Birkenhead said:
I have not, and never have had, the slightest doubt that the ultimate position of this country, by whatever quasi-legal terms you may attempt to describe it, must be that of a guarantor to a liability which was incurred in pursuance of Imperial interests.
That is a pretty broad statement—"this country, by whatever quasi-legal terms you may attempt to describe it"—was the guarantor for a liability incurred in pursuance of Imperial interests. Lord Birkenhead was followed by the Duke of Devonshire, who was then Colonial Secretary in the Government, and this is what the Duke of Devonshire said:
We shall consider it our bounden duty to see that in every possible way full and adequate assistance is rendered to those who have suffered as the consequence of the terrible struggle which has been going on in Ireland during the past two years.
Then, replying to a question put by Lord Carson on 4th December, the Duke of Devonshire added:
We have a great duty to perform, and we intend to perform it courageously and honestly.
I would pause here for an instant, and say that I hope the Government will perform their duty courageously and honestly. The Duke added:
It may he said that these are merely idle words from me, but I can assure your Lordships "—
And then he gave them an assurance that he intended to support loyally the new Free State Government that had been set up. The Duke continued:
We have an equal responsibility, reference to which has been made in the course of these Debates, in relation to compensation, land purchase, and the position of servants of the Crown. It is for us who have accepted that responsibility to see that full and ample justice is rendered in all cases.
Not that the compensation is to be so much in the pound on an obligation of the British Government, but, "full and ample" compensation. The Duke of Devonshire proceeded:
We do realise those responsibilities, and we shall act upon them, even if we have to make considerable demands upon the people of this country.
I would like to contrast that with the safeguarding statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that, of course, the Government could not undertake unlimited liabilities, which, indeed, I would remind the Committee nobody has asked them to do. Nobody has ever suggested unlimited liabilities, but we have suggested a proper, strict inquiry as to what was just and equitable, and only when that has been found, then
the honouring of the obligations which this country undertook. The Duke of Devonshire then said:
We shall not hesitate to do that if we think it is our duty to do so.
I would ask the Committee to realise—I do not think the people realise it, the time has passed so quickly and so many other events have supervened—how this solemn obligation to these injured people who have suffered their injuries and their losses, has been faced and met on the part of the British Government. It was only after a delay, year after year passing and these people still without remedies, only after pressure in this House and in the House of Lords and after the passage of years of time—it was only after all that, that, eventually, first of all the Dunedin Commission was set up to tell the Government what they ought to do. Then the Dunedin Commission reported, and the Wood Renton Committee was set up for the purpose of making inquiry and reporting to the Government what sums were just and equitable to be paid to these people.
I was very sorry to hear some of the remarks made this afternoon by the Secretary of State for the Dominions, who seemed to me to have a tendency rather to belittle the work done by the Wood Renton Committee. Nobody could say more in praise of their work than did the right hon. Gentleman a year ago. On 23rd February he said, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said before him, that they were satisfied that the Wood Renton Committee had done their work carefully and properly and well [interruption.] These constant interruptions make it very difficult for me to continue.

Mr. THOMAS: It is only fair to say that our difficulty is that we want respectfully to hear the hon. Gentleman, but our attention has been diverted by the mass meeting that is going on in the corner.

Sir H. FOSTER: I am not responsible for that, but I very much appreciate the intervention of the right hon. Gentleman. I confess that in my somewhat long experience in this House—it goes back as far as the last administration of Mr. Gladstone—in that long retrospect I cannot recall a single instance in which a state of circumstances has arisen in which one has felt absolutely ashamed,
as I am of the attitude taken by my Government—ashamed of the action of the British nation. We eventually got the Wood Renton Committee. We have got, their awards, and it is not a question of whether their awards are just or not. They are admittedly just. The Government do not raise a single question as to discriminating between one award and another. The Government merely say; "Yes, under these awards, to our great surprise, we first of all thought that £400,000 would be enough, and we solemnly said in the House of Lords by the word of Lord Salisbury that we were not going to pay a penny more than £400,000. Out of that we were paying £250 on account, and then we were paying another 50 per cent. in excess of the £250 down to £1,000 and then we wore paying 30 per cent. on all sums in excess. But we found that, even so, the total sum came, not to £400,000 but to £625,000."That was on 27th December, 1927.That raised a great outcry at once, and we had a debate in this House in February of last year, almost exactly a year ago to-day. We had first of all a speech from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and then three days later we had the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Dominions. I want the Committee to realise, because it is very much to the point, exactly what these gentlemen said. The Chancellor of the Exchequer reminded us of these statements to which I have called the attention of the Committee, that the Government did not divest themselves of a duty—I am going to quote his own words—
to see that claims to compensation in respect of injuries to persons or property in the Trish Free State in the period immediately following the Treaty were equitably met."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th February, 1928; col. 1197, Vol. 213.]
That is all that we are asking for to-day. These claims have been investigated and reported to the Government, and they should be equitably met. What is the excuse for not meeting them'? Because they will cost more money than was thought. What would have happened in Ireland if the British Government had dared to say, after the inquiry as to damage clone there by our people, "Oh, we had no idea that it was to come to £5,000,000. We cannot afford more than £2,500,000. There is 10s. in the £for
you." What would have happened then to the Treaty and the peace of Ireland? Is it equitable, is it wise that in dealing with the damage done by our own people in Ireland we should pay up to the hilt, to the extent of about £5,000,000, and in respect to the damage done to our own friends, who wisely or unwisely wished to preserve the connection with Britain, we should pay them a composition in the £ because the total amount found to be justly due is more than the amount that we want to pay them? Such an argument, such a method of dealing with an honourable liability—a liability honourably incurred by us—is unworthy of a great nation. It would be unworthy of a private individual, and we should say in that case that it was only an excuse for not paying because he had not got the money. Are we to say that England has not the other £400,000 or £500,000, and is therefore not going to discharge her honest obligations?

Mr. AMERY: I hope my hon. Friend will allow me to correct him on a point of fact. These payments are in no sense parallel to payments made for damage to property done during the disturbances before the truce. Payments to rebels and loyalists in those circumstances were all assessed in exactly the same manner by the same tribunal, the Wood Renton Committee. These payments have nothing to do with that particular type of injury, but are concerned with some measure of redress to post-truce English loyalists, and are in no sense parallel to the destruction of either loyalists' or British property during the time that the British Government was responsible for the administration of Ireland.

Sir H. FOSTER: That I quite understand; I have not the least confusion of mind. This occasion now arises from the fact, that after the truce these post-truce obligations arose because Britain withdrew her soldiers and the Irish Constabulary and left these people in a state iii which they suffered this injury and loss. My right hon. Friend assured us a year ago—I do not know whether he wishes to go back on that to-day—that the Government were perfectly satisfied with the way in which the Wood Renton Committee had done their work and made their Report to the Government. Does he question that to-day?

Mr. AMERY indicated dissent.

Sir H. FOSTER: No. Very well. Then the Wood Renton Committee by their award and Report and recommendations have admittedly done their work honestly, competently and well, and the only question is, how far will the money which the Government are pleased to say to-day that they want to limit their liability to—how far will it go round? I say that they have no right to attempt to limit their liability except to the full and just amount of the awards of the Wood Renton Committee. To attempt, under the plea of not incurring an unlimited liability, to diminish our liability, is utterly unworthy of any Government. The Chancellor of the Exchequer reminded us also a year ago that the Committee set up under Lord Dunedin
found that the persons who were entitled to rely on the above promise were those persons only who had suffered injuries in respect of their allegiance to the Government of the United Kingdom, and that that Government should take definite steps to alleviate to she best of their ability such injuries."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th February, 1928; col. 1197, Vol. 213.]
I ask again, is it in fulfilment of that promise to do it "to the best of their ability," that they are entitled to say: "We shall pay £1,000,000, and no more, although we find that the actual amount due to these people is 21,500,000?" A more serious point that I want to bring to the recollection of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Dominions, is this. In making an appeal to us the Chancellor of the Exchequer said:
I therefore take this opportunity of stating that an increased sum not exceeding £1,000,000 will be held available as required in satisfaction of these claims. All awards up to £1,000,000 will at once be paid in full. Of the excess over this figure 60 per cent. will he advanced on account immediately."—[OFFICI REPORT, 20th February, 1928; col. 1198, Vol. 213.]
The Secretary of State for the Dominions also said:
Full and ample justice should be rendered towards those who have suffered.
Another of his statements was:
As the work of the Wood Renton Committee proceeded it became evident that the total volume of hardship was much greater than we had anticipated.
Again I ask my right hon. Friend, if the actual damage was much larger than the Government had thought, is that any ground for saying that the sufferers are
not to be paid in full? It shows a miscalculation on the part of the Government, but it does not diminish our responsibility. Here are other words used by the Secretary of State for the Dominions:
We have decided to allot a sum of £1,000,000, which we believe will be sufficient to enable us to carry out these recommendations in full.
Certainly the belief I have been able to arrive at after scrutiny of the facts is that we shall come out very close indeed to £1,000,000, and I should not be in the least surprised if we come out at a figure below that amount.
Then my right hon. Friend turned to us—I remember it very well—and said:
I advise my friends to hold their hand and await the outcome of the Committee's recommendations.
And again, in reply to a question, he added:
Our estimate is that £1,000,000 will cover all the claims if paid in full."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd February, 1928; cols. 1906–10, Vol. 213.]
We held our hands; we accepted that proposal. But my right hon. Friend told us to-day: "Oh, yes, but you see we extended very generously the limit of time, because we knew that some people perhaps had not heard yet of this compensation. We extended the limit of time." To what date? To the 28th February, five days after he had made that speech. Is it really suggested that between the 23rd and 28th February a large number of claims came in? I doubt it. Is it not really the fact that practically the whole of the claims were in when my right hon. Friend made his speech?

Mr. AMERY: There were 1,100 claims after 20th February.

Sir H. FOSTER: Between 20th and 28th February? I think my right hon. Friend will find that he has been misled. I cannot believe it possible that between 20th February and 28th February 1,100 claims which had not hitherto been sent in, were poured into the Wood Renton Committee. I think my right hon. Friend has been misled. But even if there were 1,100 new claims, the Wood Renton Committee did not admit a claim simply because it was submitted to the Committee. We had been told that so well and conscientiously had they done their work that they had absolutely rejected something like one-half or more than one-
half of the claims as being outside the limited terms of their inquiry, whilst with regard to the claims on which they had issued their award or recommendation, in all those cases the claims had been scaled down, and in some instances, we were told to-day, scaled down to an extraordinary extent. The result is that to-day we have what, in effect, is a competent judgment, a judicial finding of a competent Committee, nominated and set up by the Government themselves, and the amount of their awards may be £1,500,000, but we are asked to be parties to the scaling down of the judgments that have been given because we do not want to part with more than £1,000,000 of money. Again I say, if we are going to act in that way we are going to be guilty of a shameful act that will bring dishonour to the British Government.
I conclude with this observation: It was once said of a certain English monarch whose life was none too exhilarating in the world, that nothing so well became him as the method of his departure from it. I want to say that if Britain in her departure from Southern Ireland so dishonours her plain obligation and duty and fails to discharge the liability that she incurred in pursuance of Imperial interests—those are the words of Lord Birkenhead—if she refuses her bounden duty to see that in every possible way—those are the words of the Duke of Devonshire—full and adequate assistance is rendered to these sufferers, and full and ample justice, then it may be and it will be truly said of her that, whatever her faults, whatever incapacity she showed in governing Ireland, nothing so ill became her or so covered her with dishonour as her manner of departure.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: A large number of strong supporters of the Government heard with great regret the speech made by the Secretary of State for the Dominions, as it showed a complete lack of appreciation of the case which a number of supporters of the Government have from time to time put before this Government and previous Governments. The right hon. Gentleman, I think, proved our case in the words of his own speech. He attempted to throw the blame upon myself and others who have urged the claims of these unfortunate people to the justice which they have again and again been promised,
because we asked that the time should be extended, so that persons living in outlying districts where there were few newspapers circulated should have the same opportunity of putting forward their claims as those who had been apprised of the proceedings of the Wood Renton Committee. It is important that the Dominions' Secretary should listen to what I have to say, even though it should be the last opportunity that I shall have of saying it here. The right hon. Gentleman told us that 1,00 new claims were sent in, the great majority of which were genuine. Surely he ought to have thanked those of us who prevailed on the Government to extend the time limit, so that these 1,100 genuine applicants should not be prevented from receiving justice. Is that a grievance I Surely not.
Let us take the matter a step further. The right hon. Gentleman added that, had it not been for those 1,100 additional claims, there was little doubt that the claims already in would have been paid in full. What is the meaning of that statement 4 It means that the Government admitted the justice of the claims which had then been received. "But," they say in effect, "as 1,100 other just claims were subsequently received, the claims which we have already admitted to be just must now receive amounts less than the amounts to which they are fairly entitled." That is the dilemma which the right hon. Gentleman has failed to meet, and which he will be unable to meet. As the hon. Member for Central Portsmouth (Sir H. Foster) has pointed out, there are only two alternatives if the Government refuse to pay these claims in full—one that the British Government have no money, and the other that the Wood Renton Committee have not discharged their duties fairly and judicially. As questions have been raised more than once this afternoon upon this subject, let me read what the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself said in the House on 20th February, 1928, as to the findings of the Committee:
In these circumstances the Government have examined very closely the principles which have guided the Committee in making their recommendations. They have come to the conclusion that the Committee's work has been clone in every stage with a due regard to the interests of the general public, and that their recommendations cannot be considered excessive. They have also satis-
fied themselves that the drastic scaling down of these recommendations would indict in numerous cases unmerited hardship upon individuals."—[OFFICIALREPORT, 20th February, 1928; col. 1198, Vol. 213.]
That is exactly our case.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): An increased grant was made after that date.

Sir W. DAVISON: No, there was not an increased grant after that. There has been in this matter a series of jumps—jumps caused by pressure from behind. What we are asking now is that there should be a third jump. There was first of all a jump from the original sum fixed, in that connection, may I recall, that several of us took very grave exception to something which happened then. Sir Alexander Wood Renton and his committee were secretly told, without the knowledge of the House of Commons and without the knowledge of the public in this country, that the available for compensation was only £400,000. There is no suggestion that they did not do their work properly notwithstanding that statement but it is very questionable if information like this should have been given to a judicial tribunal in the circumstances. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who told them?"] The Government told them. However judicial a tribunal may be, if its members have at the backs of their minds the idea that there is only a limited sum they are inclined to scale down their awards to the lowest possible figure. Then when it was found that that sum was grossly inadequate there was a jump to £650,000. Again that sum was found to be inadequate, and we were then told that £1,000,000 would be found for this purpose.
Surely this is trifling with us. Either these people ought to receive the full and just compensation, which the Duke of Devonshire on behalf of the Government promised them or they ought not to receive it. If they are entitled to the full and just compensation allotted by the tribunal—which the Government themselves appointed after the inquiry by Lord Dunedin—then, surely, this percentage composition of a debt of honour is trifling with the House of Commons and with the British people. It was said earlier in the Debate that we were
discussing this matter in the dark. That was also said two or three years ago. The Government in effect said: "We have promised adequate compensation in this matter but we do not know where we are. We do not even know what our promises have been, so many promises have been made." There were also the promises made by the Socialist Government when they were in office, and reference has already peen made to the statement of Lord Arnold in another place. Lord Dunedin went carefully into all the promises that had been made by all the Governments, and this is what he found:
There can be no room for doubt that all Governments which have been in power since the Articles of Agreement were signed have accepted responsibility in this way. They have all considered themselves responsible for seeing that equitable compensation was made.
Lord Dunedin and his Committee then discussed the method by which the Government could ascertain what their pledges involved and what was to he done. Lord Dunedin said:
It follows, in my opinion, that the Government should now take definite steps to ascertain the extent of such injury, and to alleviate it to the hest of their ability. The Government should have the advice of a committee specially appointed for the purpose. I think this committee should be composed of not more than three members who should not be in the employment of the Government and that the chairman should he a lawyer.
Then the committee was appointed under Sir Alexander Wood Renton. It is, of course, impossible for an applicant to go to the courts and claim that the Wood Renton Committee having held him to be entitled to, say, £1,500 nor malicious injury, their award should be upheld in the courts. But there is a moral obligation. There is a debt of honour. This was the only way in which the Government could find out whether these claims were fair or not. I have already read what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said as to the fairness with which the Committee dealt with the claims. It is idle to say that the Committee was purely advisory, and that as they had £1,000,000 to spend and no more, all the claims must be scaled down accordingly. I could give dozens of quotations bearing upon this matter but I refrain. I would only point out to the Committee that the pre-Truce claimants were compensated in full. Every one else
received full compensation without any question of fixed and limited sums for grants. We all remember the case of the 110 persons who were deported from this country. If they had been interned in this country it would have been all right, but they were sent to Ireland and it was held that the deportation was illegal. Immediately the Government set up a special tribunal and within a few weeks sill those people were compensated in full. There was no question then of the Government being only able to afford a certain sum. Whatever the tribunal assessed as a fair measure of damage was paid.
There is another matter to which I will refer while the Chancellor of the Exchequer is in his place. I think it is in order oil the point raised as to the money not being available. I understand that the Chancellor is at present negotiating on the question of taking silver coinage from the Irish Free State. That will involve a loss so this country of, I suppose, some hundreds of thousands of pounds. If that money is available why not use it now to compensate these unfortunate people? Do not let us give it to the Free State Government for their coinage. If we want more coins let us mint them ourselves, and make the profit to which we are entitled and let us use this £500,000 or £600,000—far more than is required—in order to compensate in full those claims which the Government's own Committee have held to be rightly made. I appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Dominions Secretary to consider this matter once more, not on a purely commercial basis. No one has admitted more freely than the Dominions Secretary how terrible was the situation of these people. He snows how, year after year, in our occupation of Ireland, they stood by us, and housed our soldiers, and gave the police information as to ambushes. He knows that having first disarmed these people, we took our police and soldiers away and left them exposed to anything that might befall them. We left these people in a parlous state, and their position ought to command the sympathy of hon. Members, to whatever party they belong. Thank goodness this question has always been treated as a non-party matter in the House of Commons and the country, and it is recognised by all that we have an obligation to these people.
Therefore, even at this last hour, I again appeal to the Chancellor and to the Dominions Secretary that there should be one more jump forward in this matter. At first they thought £400,000 was enough; then they thought that £650;000 was enough, and, finally, they suggest that £1,000,000 is enough. I submit that they have been wrongly informed. It is said that these extra claims, which had not been anticipated, suddenly came upon the Government in overwhelming magnitude. But, after all, it is only a question of £100,000 or £200,000 and not of millions. Surely the Chancellor of the Exchequer can make one more step forward. ID would not only gratify his supporters who feel most keenly upon this matter, but it would meet the sense of the House of Commons and the feeling of the country. I ask the Government to say that in view of the new facts which have been brought to their notice, and the recollection of the sufferings of these unfortunate people, they will reconsider the matter and pay in full whatever the Irish Grants Committee recommend as being fair and reasonable.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not in the slightest degree differ from the account which my hon. Friend has given of the hardships which fell upon the loyalist population of Southern Ireland in consequence of the grave decisions of public policy which were taken by the House of Commons and by Great Britain. I can assure him that it is not with any lack of sympathy with those who have suffered those hardships that I approach what is undoubtedly the thankless and ungrateful task of asserting the reasonable limits of Exchequer control. Some of my hon. Friends who have participated in this Debate have sometimes made severe criticisms of the weak character of our financial control and the manner in which on every occasion when there is pressure the Government yield to the demands of the spending Departments or to the representations of those interested; and I can assure them that having repeatedly to say "No" to cases made, as they often are, as they usually are, with great force, with great plausibility, with a great appeal to the compassionate side, is a very unpleasant part of the work of anyone who has the honour to occupy the high place which I hold. It is a, most unpleasant thing,
but somewhere in the State, somewhere in this rather fluid organisation of our modern Government, there must reside a principle in the light of which we can say "No" when a certain point has been reached; and it is very dangerous indeed, I think, for the House, carried away by absolutely right feelings, by strong sentiments of generosity—[HON. MEMBERS: "Justice!"]—carried away by a sincere belief that they are expressing what is just, to brush aside or wear down the constituted guardians of the public purse, to overturn the definite long-considered judgment of the Cabinet of the day, and to endeavour to extract from the public Treasury sums of money which the executive Government do not think, in broad right and equity, ought to be handed over.
Let us see how we have proceeded in this matter. In the first instance, I accept altogether the expression which has been used by my hon. Friend who spoke last. The Government have made a succession of forward jumps under pressure. That is absolutely true. It may not be a very complimentary or ceremonious way of describing what has taken place, but in my opinion it is absolutely true and accurate. More than three years ago the plea was put in that there should be a reopening of some of these cases and that there should be ex gratia payments in cases which would never have fallen under the ordinary laws of compensation, and naturally I said, as anyone in my position would have said, "Where is this going to stop?" But I was absolutely assured that £400,000 was the outside limit, and the only reason that that figure was not mentioned was that it was believed that if it was mentioned, there would be a tendency to make awards up to the full total of £400,000, whereas probably it would be found that a lesser sum would suffice. However, in agreeing to make ex gratia payments we in no way accepted an unlimited liability. Rightly or wrongly, this present Government in no way accepted an unlimited liability, and we in no way set up any tribunal or body of persons to write cheques upon the national account without limit. We said, "All right, £400,000."
Then it was found that £400,000 was not enough, and there was a strong and serious argument about that, and under
further pressure we consented to make it £650,000, if my memory serves me right. [An HON. MEMBER: "£625,000!"] It was £625,000, and that was received with a certain amount of satisfaction and then it was found that the £625,000 was not considered enough. The Committee continued to review cases and to state what they thought was the compensation which might properly be paid, but I must point out that this Committee—I have not a word to say against their credentials or against the manner in which they have done their work—was not a judicial tribunal in any sense of the word. We, for instance, at the Treasury—I have to appear in the odious role of representing the public purse—were never heard in this matter. There was no case where the Treasury counsel could advance arguments against the claims made by the parties, and canvass and criticise their credentials, such as is done when any Income Tax case is fought in any Court with the greatest vigour.
If this were the award of a judicial tribunal, there would be nothing more to be said. We habitually entrust ourselves in financial matters to the Courts of Law, and where a matter is fought out according to law by a properly constituted tribunal, whatever the bill in that particular case may be, the British Exchequer has to honour it. This was not such a tribunal. It was not a tribunal constituted on a legal basis, where both parties to the controversy were represented. It was a tribunal which was dealing with matters admittedly outside any of the ordinary formulations of the law, and, therefore, I have said throughout, not only in the House of Commons, but privately to hon. Members who take such a great interest in this matter, and who rightly take a great interest in it, "You cannot expect the Minister responsible for the time being for the public finances to allow anybody the privilege of writing unlimited cheques upon the public account otherwise than by judicial procedure with both parties represented."
We then came to the final proposal of £1,000,000, and it was accordingly, after prolonged discussion in our conclaves, settled that the Treasury should give £1,000,000 in full and final settlement. My hon. Friend has quoted a good deal from my answer of 20th February, 1928, but there were some parts that he left
out which I might perhaps read to supplement his quotations. I said:
The Government could not bind themselves to act on the advice of the Committee, but would have in their minds a limit of expenditure beyond which they would not be prepared to go, so that, if the Committee's recommendations exceeded that amount, the Government would find it necessary to adjust the payments in each individual case accordingly."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th February, 1928; cols. 1197–8, Vol. 213.]
Then I stated that we would give:£1,000,000, which was an advance from the £400,000 which we were originally assured, by those who had the cases of these people in their charge, would be sufficient. I then said:
It remains impossible for any Government to commit itself in a matter of this kind to a liability without limits. I therefore take this opportunity of stating that an increased sum not exceeding £1,000,000 will be held available as required in satisfaction of these claims.
All awards up to £1,000 will at once be paid in full. Of the excess over this figure, 60 per cent. will be advanced on account immediately. The residue of the £1,000,000 will be applied to the recommendations at the close of the Inquiry in so far as they have not been already implemented.
The House will understand the difficulty which naturally arises in reconciling a strict and fair discharge of engagements into which the State has entered with the need of protecting the Exchequer from an indefinite liability.
I should add that this decision must be taken as final so far as His Majesty's present advisers are concerned."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 20th February, 1928, cola. 1198–9, Vol. 213.]
Well, I really do not see what has occurred in the interval which should lead us to alter that decision and I am quite clear that if we were to take, what so far as we are individually concerned, would be most satisfactory and gratifying to us, namely, a further jump in response to pressure, we should be showing that there is no real resisting power in the administration of the Government in regard to matters about which, after prolonged examination, they have come to definite conclusions. After all, what was said by the late Colonial Secretary is quite true. The Government which has had to decide on this matter is not one that is unfriendly to hon. Members nor to the cause they have pleaded. Far from it; those concerned are among the most faithful supporters of the Government, and those for whom they speak are those who have suffered greatly in
the cause with which His Majesty's Government have been associated, and it is only after most prolonged consultation that we have reached our conclusion. When, the other day, we reconsidered the matter and reviewed it all again, it was only with a perfectly clear feeling that on the point of honour, on the point of justice, and on the point of a reasonable settlement and decision of these matters, we were doing what was right when we came to the conclusion that we must adhere to the perfectly plain statement we made on 20th February of last year.

Sir W. DAVISON: At that time, the 20th February, the right hon. Gentleman did not know that there were 1,100 more claims coming in which would have to be dealt with These claims were only found out since then and, therefore, I submit to my right hon. Friend that it is not climbing down in any way from that decision, but that after that, unexpectedly, 1,100 more claims have come in.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I know the date was extended to admit a further number of claims, and at the time I was assured that it was a matter that was quite negligible, but once the door is open to admit them, there flows in a flood of claims, and that finality which we had reached, or which we firmly believed we had reached, on 20th February was once again interrupted. Let us just see what are the facts of the immediate issue before the Committee because I would like the Committee to have it in mind when considering the allegations of hardship and injustice. In round numbers, 4,000 claims were put in, of which 3,175 have been heard. There is still a percentage—about a quarter—unheard. 1,538 were rejected in toto, and 1,637 recommendations for compensation were made. Of those 1,637 recommendations for compensation, covering three-quarters of all the claims that had been put in, 1,354 have been paid in full; the whole of those 1,354, including all the smaller people, all the people whose loss was estimated at £1,000 or less, have been paid in full, and only 283 have not been paid in full. We are therefore dealing at this moment with the claims of 283 persons. It is quite possible that there may be additions to that as extra recommendations come in, but that gives the Committee an idea of the figure within which this matter is contained.
6.0 p.m.
There are 283 persons who are involved in this matter and these 283 persons have already received well over £700,000—I do not know whether that is fully appreciated in all quarters of the House—and the question is whether a further sum of £300,000 or £400,000 should be made available for these same people. I am not going to argue that because a person has a large claim he should be treated unjustly, and that only a small claim should be treated justly. Right is right, and I am trying to argue the case fairly, but I have to consider very carefully in this matter the way in which the State has dealt with other classes of claimants in other spheres. These are undoubtedly people who have suffered a great injury, but who nevertheless have suffered much less severely than the people who were dealt with under the Sumner Commission in respect of war damage by air raid or bombardment. These Sumner awards, given by a Commission presided over by a Judge, were scaled down by the British Government in a marked manner in order to reduce the total allocation to a fixed amount. A person who had an award of £100,000 received only 27¾per cent. A loyalist under the present arrangements would receive 60½ per cent. Persons with a claim of £50,000 under the Sumner scale for war damage received 30½ per cent. The loyalists under the present arrangement will receive 61 per cent. The £10,000 claims under the Sumner Commission received 33¼ per cent. and under the present scale the Irish loyalists will receive 64 per cent. As we get to the smaller figures they tend more to approximate. The Committee ought very carefully to consider the whole of this position. I believe on the whole that although there is great hardship—I do not deny it for a moment—these sufferers have been dealt with on a better footing than many other large and important classes of persons who suffered from enemy action and violent commotion during the period through which we have passed. I also believe that all the cruder and more primary cases of hardship have been satisfactorily dealt with, and so far as those who still have not received the full satisfaction of their claims are concerned, they have at any rate received substan-
tial payment and are in a far better position than those who had their houses destroyed by the bombs of German aeroplanes or shells from German guns.
I have to carry out a task which is most ungrateful. It would be very much easier for me to take £300,000 or £400,000 out of the Exchequer, and everybody would be all smiles and very agreeable, but I am bound to say that the maintenance of public economy is only achieved by a number of small and disagreeable wrangles and fights, and if that process falls into desuetude and those who endeavour to maintain economy are censured for their exertions, then right down the whole line you will find weakness and collapse. I have noticed steadily in the last few years that throughout the public departments there has been a tendency to save money on the money asked for in the Estimates, which Ministers have pledged their word was essential; there has been a tendency to save money and money has been saved in substantial amounts running into millions. The same tendency is apparently developing this year, and money is being saved, although it has been voted by this House, by subsequent minor frugalities in administration. I am very much in the hands of the Committee in this matter, and I ask the Committee to consider whether they may not be injuring very much larger issues if they put undue pressure upon the Government, against their better judgment and the judgment of those responsible for the public purse, to go, in the case of these Irish sufferers for whose distress we have the deepest sympathy, altogether beyond what has been held appropriate in the case of others whose pangs are at least as keen.

Lord HUGH CECIL: I have listened to the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer with very great interest, and, so far as he has indicated an advocacy of economy, with very great sympathy. I am very glad to hear that he attaches so much importance to the particular part of his duty which consists in watching over the public purse. One would hardly have guessed it if we contemplate the general course of his administration. Of all the expectations that existed about the present Government, that of economising the public funds is the one that has perhaps been the most disastrously and lamentably disappointed. I am glad
that he at any rate is convinced of the value of economy. Let us be clear as to what economy means. It means saving money in respect of administration. It does not mean refusing to pay a debt of honour. That is called by a much harsher name—a name too harsh to be within the limits of Order within this House. I listened to my right hon. Friend's speech, and I think that I never heard a speech which more reflected on the efficiency of the Government which he has been defending.
Here is a claim on the Government, put forward on grounds of justice and honour, and not of administrative expediency. I do not inquire whether it was well founded, but surely it is perfectly plain that what the Government ought to have done is, first, to have laid down the principle of honour by which they were going to be guided, so that they might distinguish what claims were and what were not honourably binding upon them; and, secondly, to ascertain the facts. They did nothing of the kind. They said, first, that they would give one sum, and then went a little further and gave another sum, as though you can value an obligation of honour on a principle of percentages. How impossible it is! Yet the right hon. Gentleman does not see the absurdity of it. If it be an obligation of honour, then you must pay it in full. If it be not an obligation of honour, say so; but it is too late to say so, because the Government have said the contrary long ago. My right hon. Friend is in this calamitous position, that he can only excuse himself from an implication of dishonour by affirming that he and the other Ministers responsible have misrepresented the whole course of the transactions over and over again during the past years. It has always been treated, not as a compassionate donation, but as an obligation. If it be an obligation, it is foolish to talk about economy, because you must not economise in the obligations of honour.
On these grounds, I think that the Government ought not to remember economy just for once, when it is rather dishonourable to do so. They should show their zeal for economy in other fields, of which there are many. I am opposed to a great deal of Naval expenditure, of Air Force expenditure, and of expenditure on education, and I would undertake to save ten times the sum here
involved if I were in the right hon. Gentleman's place without any injury to the public service. But I refuse to view the matter in that aspect. You cannot put into the account of administrative savings, obligations which really arise from a moral source. If this be a moral obligation, that is decisive, and you have no business to take into consideration the normal play of administrative expediency. I certainly think that those who have called attention to this grievance ought to divide against the Government, and I earnestly hope that the Government may be defeated. They will deserve it, for the transaction is a last disgraceful item in an inheritance of shame, and my right hon. Friend is one of these who have brought it on the Government and this country.

Sir ALFRED HOPKINSON: I am bound to say, after having listened to the speeches of the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that I have riot heard one word that removes from my mind the feeling of repugnance at what has been done in regard to the Irish claims. We are placed in an extraordinarily difficult position, as we are out and out supporters of the present Government, but on a matter of this sort there is something far above all party ties. We regard this as a matter of honour. When we hear expressions of doubt, let us take one example which has been alluded to more than once, namely, the Wood Renton Committee. That Committee was set up to examine claims that were put forward by Irish loyalists, and to see whether those claims were excessive or not. To say that it was not strictly speaking; a judicial tribunal is a legal quibble. In plain and honest language, that tribunal was set up for the purpose of seeing how much of these claims were fair claims. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) said that many of the claims had been reduced. Of course they have. One knows in cases of that sort that people honestly exaggerate their claims. The Wood Renton Committee did reduce claims, and did examine and report what should be a fair amount to be allowed in each of the claims.
What is at the root of this whole matter? Let us examine the nature of these claims to see whether they are
claims which we are bound to honour or not. If we are bound to honour them, a few hundred thousand pounds more or less is not in it. If we feel that there was an obligation of honour, it is not a question of the nicely calculated less or more. If we once establish that position, we should pay, and all this counting of so many millions or so much reduction should not be in it. Is it an obligation of honour or not? I may be wrong about that, but I should be glad to be corrected if I am wrong. What, however are the claims? Do not let anybody in considering this question regard it from a party point of view. On this point I should like to have an answer: What is the true nature of these claims? I am one of those who regretted what was done in Ireland, but we have made a bargain, and we must stick to it. It only does harm to attempt to criticise it; we have done wrong and foolish things, but there it is, and we have to stand by our bargain. There are a number of people in Ireland attached to their country as we are attached to ours, but they took a different view from the majority. Their homes were there, and anybody who knows Ireland knows how dear their homes are to them. They were the people who by their traditions and family connections, and by their whole past history were attached to the British nation. They were people who trusted to this—that they would have the protection of the English Parliament and of English law. What we did to them—rightly or wrongly, I do not ask that question to-day—was to say to them, "Go. You shall no longer be under the protection of the British Parliament or of British law. You may have been our friends, you may have fought for us in the War, your sons may have died for us in the War, but now you can go." That may have been right—I will not argue that point, because it would be taking us too far afield; but they wanted to stay with us, and we said, "Go."
Then what happened to them? The fact that they had been supporters of our cause in the War, the fact that they had been attached to the United Kingdom, was the reason why they were attacked. In those circumstances what could we do reasonably but say to them: "High conditions of State made it necessary that you must go, but the least
we can do is to pay you what you have lost." One case after another has been quoted here, and we could have quoted dozens more, where people have gone forth from their homesteads penniless, because every bit of compensation they got has gone to pay their debts, which they met as honest men. We cannot forget their treatment in comparison with the treatment of those people whose property was burned during the German air raids over this country. That was a catastrophe of the War. We were not responsible for that. We endeavoured to stop it. But in the case of these men it was we who said "Go," it was we who said that they should be deprived of the protection of this Parliament and of this nation, and the least we can do is to compensate them fairly.
I beg of the Government not to force us into the position, which we should hate, of going against the Government. Do not force us into that position. Give us a different view, give us a different outlook, give us the idea that you do realise what the nature of this obligation is. We mean to see this obligation carried out. We mean to see that these men, who have committed no crime at all, shall have the reasonable compensation which has been fixed by an impartial tribunal. I claim it to he a tribunal; call it an advisory body if you like, but. I do not care a rush about the title. A fair-minded body fixed the compensation, and the obligation is an obligation of honour. I say to the Government: "Do not force us, who are your most earnest supporters, to go against you on an issue of this kind." We feel that this is a question which transcends party consideration; it is not a question of pounds, shillings and pence; it is a question of the honour of ourselves and of our nation.

Sir BASIL PETO: I do not think that either the Secretary of State for the Dominions or the Chancellor of the Exchequer quite realises the implication of the decision that they have announced as to payment of the recommendations of the Wood Renton Committee. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the course of his speech, asked what had occurred since the Government came to their decision last year. That has already been made plain to the Committee. The Chancellor of the Exchequer,
referring to an answer to a Private Notice question of mine, which he has quoted, in February of last year, stated that at that time the Government did not know that 1,100 new cases would come in as a result of the extension of time for the presentation of claims. The Secretary of State for the Dominions has said that these are cases of as great hardship as any which came before the Committee, but that the result of bringing in these further cases, the cases of people in remote parts of Ireland, who had not previously heard of the opportunities of making a claim, and who, if the time had not been extended, would have been given no compensation at all, was to affect the share of the £1,000,000 which the other cases, already admitted for consideration, would receive. I do not think that ought to be the result at all. The Government, having agreed to extend the time for the presentation of claims, ought to have realised that it was very possible that these claims would make a further demand upon the Treasury.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer made a great point of the fact that the cases already decided would all have been paid in full, with the exception of the 283 claims referred to. If the Government adhere to their decision, these 283, who are the largest claimants, the people who have lost most, will be required to pay the whole of the compensation for all the 1,100 claims. I will tell the Committee why I make that statement. When on 20th of February last year the Chancellor of the Exchequer was answering me he said this:
It now appears, from all the evidence we have been able to collect, that the total compensation which may be recommended by the Wood Renton Committee, including the payments already made, may be approximately £1,000,000.
It was because, according to the information they had collected, that they believed the £1,000,000 would be sufficient to pay in full that they decided on the figure of £1,000,000. They had already admitted the principle that in order to treat these cases fairly it was necessary practically to provide payment in full, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer also said that they had satisfied themselves that the drastic scaling down of the recommendations would inflict in numerous cases severe un-
merited hardship upon individuals. He said further—this has not been quoted before—
which hardship might reflect upon the sincerity with which the Government had given effect to the undertakings of their predecessors."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th February, 1928; col. 1198, Vol. 213.]
If that was true when the Chancellor of the Exchequer read out that answer to me just a year ago that the drastic scaling down of any of these claims would reflect upon the sincerity of the Government, why does it not reflect upon the sincerity of the Government to have a drastic scaling down to-day and to throw the onus of their responsibility for the 1,100 claims upon the shoulders of the people who have suffered the greatest losses?
I cannot believe that either the Secretary of State for the Dominions or the Chancellor of the Exchequer realises that the Government are not only now pursuing a course which they said a year ago would reflect upon the sincerity of the Government, but that people who have had utterly undeserved losses thrown upon them, the section who have suffered the largest losses, will now have to bear the whole burden of paying compensation to their fellow sufferers in remote parts of Ireland who did not know of the necessity for sending in their claims in time. I cannot believe that the Government will take such a course as that, and I echo what has been said in other quarters on this side of the House and express my intense regret that the Government should put their supporters in the position of either having to vote for what they regard as an impossible course in dealing with this obligation of honour or else of voting against the Government.

Major HILLS: Listening to the speeches Which have been made in this Debate, it seems to me that my hon. Friends who are attacking the Government and who are asking for a further payment to the Southern Loyalists defend their case almost entirely on the ground that it is a question of moral obligation. We have been told in many powerful and moving speeches that the Government are bound in honour to pay the full amount which has been found to be due by the Wood Renton Committee. A very strong case was made by many of my hon. Friends, and no one can have
listened unmoved to their speeches, but surely the whole charge against the Government turns on this point: Was the Wood Renton Committee, or was it not, a judicial body which could give a final decision; or was it an advisory body? [Interruption.] Is not that a perfectly fair way of putting the case? If the Government agreed that they would pay what the Wood Renton Committee found to be due, I think the Government ought to pay; but surely that is not the position which the Government took up. The Wood Renton Committee was not more than an advisory body, the Government retaining in their hands the final decision, the decision of the amount they would pay. It may be right or wrong to pay a bigger amount, but you cannot charge the Government with breach of faith, for your whole case on that question of breach of faith rests on proving that the Government at some time or other agreed to pay the amounts which the Wood Renton Committee decided, and I have not yet heard any one speaker—and I have been here throughout this Debate—take up that ground. That being so, the Government are entitled to say that they are the final arbiters.
With great respect to the Committee, and in face of the powerful speeches made by my Noble Friend the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil) and others, I say the Government could not abrogate their position. It is their duty to settle the matter; it is not a matter which they gave over to the Wood Renton Committee. I believe the Chancellor of the Exchequer has stated the proper position which the Government ought to take up and which he, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, ought to take up. I think he was quite right to remind hon. Members, especially the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison), of the strong appeals for more economy which they have addressed to him, and I feel that he is quite entitled to pray that in aid. A very large proportion of these claims have been paid in full. There are 283 claims remaining—I think there are some claims not heard; but these 283 claimants have been paid already £700,000. Now I understand my hon. Friends wish a further £500,000 to be given to them—I suppose to this comparatively small number of claimants. Is
it not a reasonable proposition that in a case of this sort we should pay the full amount to the man of small means who has lost his whole position, treating him more liberally than the more wealthy man? [Interruption.] A sum of £700,000 among 283 persons is a very big disbursement; but more than that is asked for now. I suggest to the Committee that the Government are entitled to say that they cannot abrogate their right to make the decision in this matter. I can imagine very well what would have been said if they had abrogated their position. I believe the Chancellor of the Exchequer has taken up the right position. I believe that my hon. Friends are led away by honourable and generous sentiments, but I think they have based their case, and especially the serious charge of a breach of honour, on a misconception. I think the Government are right, and I shall certainly vote for them.

Mr. O'NEILL: My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ripon (Major Hills) has the distinction of being the only hon. Member on the Government side who has supported the Government. The hon. Member made great complaint of the fact that this was not a judicial tribunal, and that its awards were not awards which the Government need accept. I understand that in many of the cases now in dispute the awards have actually been accepted by the Government. Letters have been written to those who have received payments, in this style:
Dear Sir, I am directed by His Majesty's Government to inform you that the Irish Grants Committee has made an award in your case of (so much). That award is accepted by the Government, and I enclose you a cheque of (so much) on account.
I believe that is the way in which these payments have been made. Quite apart from the moral obligation, surely that is very nearly a legal obligation to pay the other 40 per cent. which is now due. The details of these cases have already been sufficiently threshed out. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that this was a matter in which he was largely in the hands of the Committee. If that be so, I think the opinion of the House of Commons is manifest and definite. This is one of those cases where the House of Commons takes control, and it is quite obvious that the great mass of the feeling
of hon. Members who usually support the Government is such that if this matter is put to the Vote they must reluctantly vote against the Government. We have had some strong expressions of opinion which the Prime Minister has not heard, but which no doubt have been conveyed to him. In view of the strong expressions of opinion which have come from the Government benches, and in view of the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that he is in the hands of the House of Commons in regard to this matter, I hope the Government will carry out what is obviously the will of the House of Commons.

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
I regret very much that owing to my natural inability to be in two places at once, I was unable to be in the House this afternoon, but I always make it my practice to be made aware of what is proceeding in the Chamber even if T am not in it. I have heard of the expressions of opinion to which utterance has been given from various quarters of the House during the course of this afternoon's Debate. I have also heard the observations which have fallen from my right hon. Friend the Member for Antrim (Mr. O'Neill). In these circumstances, I am perfectly prepared to move to report Progress with a view to re-examining the whole situation in the light of the Debates which have taken place.

Mr. THOMAS: I am sure that every Member of this House is delighted to have had this opportunity of seeing exactly how the Government would attempt to meet a real crisis. Last week the bell was sounded, and the country was told that in a few months' time the electors would have an opportunity of choosing people with backbone or people who considered principles before anything else. The electors were told something else. They were told that the Labour Government fell, because they responded to pressure of the back benchers. We were told that the collapse of the Labour Government was not because the Prime Minister or the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not want to do the right thing, but because they had no backbone. That was what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said to the anti-Socialist Union.
That was the Chancellor of the Exchequer giving the clarion call to the country in a few months. Now the same Chancellor of the Exchequer says that someone must act as the watchdog. An hour ago the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that if we were to respond to this clamour there would be an end to sane and safe government, and that, however much our hearts might prompt us to give way on a question of this kind, we have to consider what the public outside would say in regard to our action.
In the interval, the Whips have been busy, and they have discovered that there was at least a chance of the Diehards carrying their Amendment to a Division. The Prime Minister comes in, and says: "Never mind what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said last week, I have got some backbone. Never mind what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said only last week or to-day. The real backbone that matters is never allow yourself to be defeated on principle." Therefore, in order to avoid that interesting situation, the Prime Minister has asked leave to report Progress. The object of reporting Progress is to see if claims, amounting in the first place to £400,000, then to £625,000, and afterwards to the irreducible £1,000,000, can be met. There may be £1,300,000 claims between now and the opportunity of discussing this question again. That is the object of reporting Progress, and this is what we get from a Government with backbone, this Government with courage who three months before a General Election throws over the Colonial Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer and gives way absolutely to the Diehards. We shall watch with interest the next stage of this development, and we are quite sure the country will draw a right conclusion.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: I have just listened to one of the leaders of the General Strike taking about backbone. Precious little backbone he showed on that occasion. If the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) had spoken about whalebone, it would have been more to the point. I think the Government have taken a wise course. It may be that we have some absurd Rules in this House about what may happen if back benchers do not fully support
the Government; but in a matter of this kind if they differ from some of their leaders they are only stating what the country very definitely feels. What is the Government there for but to interpret the feelings of the people? I think the Government are really showing by the course they are taking that they understand that after all they are the representatives of the people. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby did not say whether he was or was not in favour of the loyalists getting what is due to them. That is what we get from the leader of a party which showed the greatest amount of jelly fish character in the greatest crisis through which this country has ever passed. The country will judge between the action of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby and the Government, and I am sure that the Government only desire to carry out the wishes of those whom they represent.

Mr. MAXTON: I cannot resist this opportunity of congratulating the back benchers on the other side of the House on their victory to-day. I have been led to believe from various quarters, from the Tory Press and Tory speeches, that it is only on the Labour benches that we find a division of opinion. To-day, it has been proved otherwise, and I congratulate the back benchers on the opposite side of the House sincerely and honestly on their success. I could have wished that this uprising of the masses had been in a somewhat worthier cause. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] It is in circumstances like this that the essence of a party's thoughts comes out, and it is noteworthy that, over a period of more than four years, the Tory hack-benchers in the House of Commons have never once dreamed of asserting their authority until the question at issue was a question of putting more money into the pockets of their social friends across the Irish Sea. I regret that that should be the fact, though I congratulate them on having demonstrated that the House of Commons has still power to control the Government. They have gained this one thing at the expense of their moral standing with the working-class community in this country, who, to a large extent, were responsible for putting them on those benches. Only once during the whole of their 4½ years of opportunity
have they asserted their right as independent Members in this Chamber, and that was in the service of people who were already well off, while they have walked into the Lobbies on every possible occasion to vote for the depression of the standards of life of others.

Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

REPORT [15TH FEBRUARY].

CIVIL ESTIMATES, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1928.

Resolutions reported:

Class VII.

1. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £5,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1929, for Expenditure in respect of Houses of Parliament Buildings."

Class II.

2. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,500, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1929, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies."

Class I.

3. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £437, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1929, for the Salaries and other Expenses in the Department of His Majesty's Treasury and Subordinate Departments."

Class III.

4. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £6,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1929, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Lord Advocate's Department, and other Law Charges, the Salaries and Expenses of the Courts of Law and Justice and of Pensions Appeals Tribunals in Scotland, and Bonus on certain Statutory Salaries."

Civil Estimates (Excess), 1927.

5. "That a sum, not exceeding £90,147 18s. 7d., be granted to His Majesty, to make good an Excess on the Grant for Old Age Pensions for the year ended 31st March, 1928.

—
Excess of Expenditure over Gross Estimate.
Deficiency of Appropriations in Aid realised.
Total Amount to be Voted.



Class V.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.


Vote 10
Old Age Pensions
88,882
17
4
1,265
1
3
90,147
18
7"

Resolutions agreed to.

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURAL CREDITS (SCOTLAND) BILL.

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): This Bill has come back to the House from the Scottish Standing Committee, having been very carefully considered by that Committee. It has returned to this House with some minor Amendments, but with practically no major alteration. I would express the hope that the Bill may be of material assistance to the agricultural community in Scotland. The House has, of course, already passed a Measure dealing with this subject in England. In Scotland—[HON. MEMBERS "Agreed!"]—I only want to say one or two more words. We have applied Part I of the Bill to long-term credits, and Part II to short-term credits for agricultural co-operative societies. I trust that the Bill will be of considerable advantage to the agricultural community in Scotland.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — SAVINGS BANK BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
The main object of this Bill is to facilitate the further expansion of trustee savings banks, and to effect simplifications in the administration of these banks. I need hardly remind the
House that these trustee savings banks are among the oldest and most valuable instruments of thrift to be found in this country. Some of them have been in existence for more than 100 years. Originally established locally as voluntary organisations by public-spirited citizens, they came for the first time—

Mr. THOMAS: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but surely he need not occupy further time on this matter, seeing that the House accepts the principle.

Mr. SAMUEL: These institutions were originally established as voluntary institutions, and they came under a measure of Government control in 1817. Since that time many Acts have been passed regulating the administration of these banks and the manner in which the funds of the depositors are invested, but throughout all this legislation the principle that these trustee savings banks should be administered by local persons, controlled by local bodies of unpaid trustees, has been maintained unimpaired. It is largely to this feature of local control and local management by people who are known in the districts in which these trustee banks operate that they owe the great success which they have attained as instruments of thrift.
The House is probably aware that these trustee savings banks are divided into two departments. There is, firstly, the Ordinary Department, the funds of which are invested with the National Debt Commissioners, who guarantee a fixed rate of interest, the trustees being able to obtain from the National Debt Commissioners repayment of the principal, if and when called upon by the depositors, as and when required. There is also a Special Investment Department, in which depositors who have £50 in the Ordinary Department may deposit money in addition to their ordinary deposits. The funds of this Investment Department are invested in Government securities which have a life of not more than three years,
and on looking through the list I find that few of these departments of trustee banks pay a rate of interest lower than 4 per cent. These funds, also, may he and are to a large degree invested in local securities secured on the rates, but the currency in that case must not be longer than six months.

Mr. SKELTON: Has my hon. Friend any figures showing the growth of these banks?

Mr. SAMUEL: Yes, I think I can give them, though only roughly, from memory. I think there are 119 banks, with 450 offices, and, still speaking from memory at this short notice, I believe the total amount deposited is about £82,000,000 in the Ordinary Department and £38,000,000 or slightly more in the Investment Department. The figure that I have in mind is a total of about £120,000,000 deposited.

Mr. BENN: As a general rule, are these banks able to report progress?

7.0 p.m.

Mr. SAMUEL: These banks are not organised to deal in witticisms. As I have said, there is a long series of Acts governing the operation of these trustee savings banks, and they have contained a number of administrative provisions which are inconvenient and hamper development arid expansion. Clause of this Bill amends the present law as to security to be given by an officer of a bank. This will enable the banks to take fidelity guarantees as a whole, covering all their officers, instead of, as is at present the case, its being necessary to take out a separate fidelity guarantee policy for each separate officer. Clause 16 deals with another of the difficulties that are hampering the work of these banks. The property of these banks is vested in numerous trustees, and Clause 16 will simplify the dealings of the banks in property of all kinds, whether real or personal property. It will vest all property in four custodian trustees, and it will in future not be necessary for every one of an existing body of many trustees to have to sign all documents and be responsible for all transactions.
Clause 17, which deals with accounts presented by the National Debt Commissioners with respect to trustee savings
banks, will enable the accounts to be prepared in a more informative way. Clause 18 (Regulations as to form and execution of documents) is a Clause which will sweep away some cry hampering regulations. It will enable the. National Debt Commissioners to prescribe the appropriate persons who may sign the numerous documents and returns which are prepared by the trustee savings banks. This Clause alone is almost a consolidating Clause simplifying as it will the regulations contained in no less than 30 Acts of Parliament carried in the last 100 years.
In order to assist the greater development of these trustee savings banks, we propose in Clause 7 that
Where the Commissioners, in pursuance of Section two of the Trustee Savings Banks Act, 1863, approve the formation of a new trustee savings bank, the Commissioners may, after consultation with the Association and the Inspection Committee, advance to the trustees of that bank out of such part of the separate surplus fund as stands to the credit of closed trustee savings banks such sums as they think fit for the purpose of providing for expenses incurred in connection with the formation and the initial working of the bank, and any such advance may be made on such terms and conditions and for such period as the Commissioners with the consent of the Treasury may determine.
That empowers the Commissioners of the National Debt to lend certain surplus moneys in their hands, which now amount roughly to £200,000, for the purpose of meeting the preliminary expenditure involved in opening a new bank.
Clause 8 (Power to apply surplus special investment capital for land and buildings) will permit the banks to use part of their surplus money of the Special Investment Departments to provide buildings for the purposes of the trustee savings banks. In Clause 6, we also take power to permit the opening of Special Investment Departments in exceptional circumstances. Normally such a department cannot he opened unless there are £200,000 in deposits in the ordinary department. We widen somewhat the scope of the securities in which the deposits in these Departments may be invested. Clause 2 is designed to prevent the closing of any trustee savings bank until it is found quite impossible to discover suitable persons willing to carry it on. Clause 4 (Expenses of National Debt Commissioners and Inspection Committee
to be defrayed out of surplus interest) charges on the surplus income of the savings bank fund the administrative expenses which have been incurred by the National Debt Commissioners in connection with these banks, which are at present not recovered by the National Debt Commissioners. It similarly provides for the recovery of the expenses of the inspection committee.
Clause 5 affects only the Post Office Savings Bank and will remove an anomaly, to which attention was called in 1927 by a Committee which sat under the chairmanship of the Comptroller and Auditor-General. It carries out the recommendations of that Committee. Clause 6 contains Amendments as to special investments. If the House desires, I will read the Clause:
 6.—(1) Notwithstanding anything in paragraph (d) of Sub-section (2) of Section 1 of the Trustee Savings Bank Act, 1918, the Commissioners may, if they think fit, on the application of the trustees of any trustee savings bank, authorise not more than 20 per cent. of the moneys received by the trustees in respect of special investments to be invested in any Government securities which will mature for payment not later than 20 years after the date of the investment.
(2) It shall not be necessary for the Commissioners, before authorising the trustees of a trustee savings bank in pursuance of Sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Savings Banks Act, 1904, to make special investments, to be satisfied that the bank has an aggregate cash liability to its depositors, irrespective of the amount of any special investments, of not less than two hundred thousand pounds, if

(a) the Association concur in the recommendation of the Inspection Committee required by that Sub-section; and
(b) the Commissioners, having regard to the financial position of the bank and the size and importance of the area served by it, think it expedient in the interests of the depositors of the bank that the authority should be given."
That is Clause 6. If the hon. Members would like me to explain it still further, I will do so.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why he is carefully omitting Clause 7?

Mr. SAMUEL: By all means, let me deal with it. Clause 7 gives power to make advances to new trustee savings banks.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Why has the right hon. Gentleman not taken power to make advances to municipal savings banks?

Mr. SAMUEL: It is not within the Title of the Bill. The hon. Member has asked me for an explanation of Clause 7. As I read it, if money is desired to open a new trustee savings bank the initial money has to be found for the purpose by the trustees, and the present position of affairs makes it very difficult to open new trustee savings banks. I am not dealing with municipal savings banks, but with the trustee banks referred to in this Bill. Under this Clause, the National Debt Commissioners may lend money out of surplus funds for the purpose of opening new trustee banks. It comes out of a fund standing to the credit of the banks closed during the last 100 years, and the terms of any loans will be subject to Treasury approval. The fund now amounts to £219,000.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Would the hon. Member answer the question put to him?

Mr. SAMUEL: The question was answered last year by the decision taken at the time when the principle or idea which the hon. Member has at the back of his mind and upon which his question is based came up in connection with municipal savings banks and was rejected by a vote of this House. If hon. Members would like any further explanation of the various Clauses, I am at their service and will try to give it. I ought to say in conclusion that there have been many meetings between the National Debt Commissioners and the representatives of the Trustee Savings Banks Association and that this Bill is the outcome of those meetings and is accepted by the Trustee Savings Banks Association.

Mr. COUPER: It gives me considerable pleasure to support this Bill, the reason being that, as a representative of the City of Glasgow, which has one of the largest savings banks in the country, I have the authority of the Glasgow Security Savings Bank for stating that this Bill has their hearty support and that they desire in the interests of the depositors that the Measure should become law. The hon. and gallant Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Benn), in a facetious way, inquired if the savings banks have the right to report progress. They have such authority, because the Glasgow Security Savings Bank at their last meeting reported progress to the extent of
an increase of £1,000,000 in their deposits. The total deposits of that bank at the present time are £23,000,000, which shows the saving and thrifty nature of the working-classes of the City of Glasgow. Incidentally, it is a very able support to the national funds in which the funds of that bank are invested. The depositors there, though getting only a small rate of interest—½ per cent.—on their deposits are satisfied with that interest because of the ample and certain security they have in knowing that their money is safe in the hands of the trustees of such a responsible bank.
While the interest may be only 2½ per cent., by thrift the depositor can increase the amount of his deposit up to £100 or £400 and the interest, instead of being lower as the principal increases, is increased, and he can get up to 4 per cent. on his deposits. That is done with the object of encouraging saving throughout the community. It not only encourages saving among the poorest of the community, but among the youngest children who come in themselves with their pass book and account. It also encourages the Penny Savings Bank, who keep their accounts with the Glasgow Security Savings Bank. That all leads to saving, and it is a very creditable thing, in these dire times when unemployment is so rife in our great industrial centres, that, in an industrial centre which has suffered so much as Glasgow, the people should have increased their savings and deposits by £1,000,000.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Will the hon. Gentleman explain how it is that the wealthier people who loan £400 get a higher rate of interest than poorer people who can only loan £20?

Mr. COUPER: I do not think the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) has quite grasped the position. It is not a loan at all; it is a deposit. On a deposit, a person is bound to get a return. On small sums it is 2½ per cent., but in order to induce increased deposits, the rate of interest is correspondingly increased. Otherwise commercial people used to handling money would naturally withdraw their money and place it elsewhere in order to get a higher rate of interest. Money is left in the hands of the savings bank because of the certainty that depositors will obtain security for their
principal. The trustees of these banks are men of reputation who carry out their duties without any remuneration solely to protect and look after in every possible way the interests of the poorer people who have not the knowledge required to handle large sums. When a bank like City of Glasgow Savings Bank can gather together from the savings of the people, £23,000,000 sterling, I think they ought to have the encouragement and support of everyone, whether they represent the Labour, Unionist or Liberal party in this House.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I would not have risen to intervene in this Debate had it not been for the remarks of the hon. Member for Maryhill (Mr. Couper) and for some of the remarks made by the hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. The whole question of the relationship of trustees savings banks to the national Treasury is profoundly unsatisfactory. The poor people of this country deposit money or lend money to these savings banks, the Post Office Savings Bank and trustee savings banks, at 2½ per cent. interest. When these poor people desire, through their local authorities, to build houses they have to borrow their own money from the national Treasury, not at 2½ per cent. at which they lend their money, but at 5 per cent. What is happening is that the national Treasury and the rich taxpayers in the country are using the low rate of interest of these trustee savings banks to make profits for themselves and their class. Whenever this House gets an opportunity of raising the whole question of the relationship of trustee savings banks to the national Treasury, I trust that it will take advantage of it.
The hon. Gentleman who introduced this Bill was very careful not to explain why it was that these facilities are to apply to private trustee savings banks, if I may so call them, and not to municipal savings banks. He refrained altogether from giving any reason why local authorities and public institutions should not be empowered to set up trustee savings banks in order to encourage thrift, to allow the poor people a higher percentage than they get now, to lower the rate of interest for municipal borrowing, and generally to secure the results which have been secured in the City of Birmingham under the very able direction of the Minister of Health.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury and the representatives of the Government have never in this House given any adequate reason, as far as I know, why other cities should be precluded from having the advantages which Birmingham secured as a result of an Act of Parliament. I do not intend to divide the House against this Bill or to do anything to obstruct it. I merely want to say that as far as I and many Members on this side of the House are concerned, we are profoundly dissatisfied at the way the Treasury deals with the savings of the poor of this country, and we trust that at an early date we shall be in a position properly to amend these laws.

Sir HILTON YOUNG: By an accident in the procedure of the House, we have really had time to-day to discuss a matter of first-rate importance, which is not a frequent occurrence. Otherwise we might not have had an opportunity of doing it. The matter has already been raised in the observations of my hon. Friend the Member for Maryhill (Mr. Couper), who spoke of the wonderful efforts of the Glasgow Savings Bank, and by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston). There can be no doubt to the attentive mind that we are rapidly approaching a crisis in the history of the savings' bank movement, a crisis in which these invaluable institutions will need the most careful guidance for their preservation in the service of the country. I do not entirely put aside the fascinating question of municipal savings banks raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee. I suppose that the short answer in many minds to his appeal on behalf of those institutions is that municipalities can generally find plenty to do without running a bank. To return to the actual Measure before us, it raises a question, which surely needs attention, in the guardianship of savings banks. The peculiar danger in the position of the savings bank is that, owing to the cost of banking under modern conditions, it must inevitably be run at a loss if it is to fulfil the guarantee to the depositors, that is, as long as the earlier procedure of investing only in Government securities or securities of a similar gilt-edged nature continues. In the desire to avoid the constantly accruing loss there is an inducement to indulge in more enterprising investments, and that we see in
this Bill, if we look at Clause 3. It says:
Section five of the Savings Banks Investment Act, 1863 (which provides that one-half of the securities held by the Commissioners for savings banks shall consist of securities the interest of which is chargeable on the Consolidated Fund), shall cease to have effect.
We have a symptom of the modern tendency to allow more rope to the savings banks to give a higher rate of interest in the discharge of their very difficult and heavy obligations. In the great commercial banks that modern tendency is safeguarded by the growth of the science of investment which enables a more enterprising policy of investment to be carried on with complete safety. But the specific difficulty in the case of these most valuable and small institutions is that they cannot command the same area of investment or the services of the experts in the science and art of investment to the same extent. I would like to ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who has given such careful attention to this Measure, whether it is in the contemplation of His Majesty's Treasury to make some effort to ensure that as these increased powers of investment are given to the managers of the savings banks, their use shall be safeguarded by putting at the disposal of these managers the best obtainable advice in the financial world, and that the adoption of that best advice by managers of the smaller institutions shall be enforced by the regulations from His Majesty's Treasury. Of course, sigh institutions as those to which my hon. Friend the Member for Maryhill referred need no attention in regard to this matter, but the specific character of the institutions with which this Bill deals is that they are the survivors of an earlier date.

Mr. SAMUEL: Perhaps I may assist my right hon. Friend. I have made a careful note of the valuable suggestion which he has made. It is a Committee point, and he can rest assured that after the Debate, is over, I will see into the matter, and deal with the suggestion and give it full consideration.

Sir H. YOUNG: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I hesitate to accept the suggestion that it is a, Committee point, because I think that it goes to the very root of savings banks, but in view of my
hon. Friend's assurance I support the Bill.

Mr. E. C. GRENFELL: I was surprised to see the Labour party accept this Bill with so little criticism, because we all know that they have very strong views on savings banks. In looking at the earlier Clauses—Clauses 2, 3 and 4 —I am not surprised that in the Bill power is given to close some of these banks after due consideration. Clause 2, Sub-section (2) says:
The consent of the Commissioners under this Section shall not be given unless and until they have satisfied themselves, after consultation with the Inspection Committee and the Association, that there are no proper persons able and willing to act as trustees and managers of the bank.
I do not think that under that Clause the Commissioners are really acting as widely as they might in regard to proper managers for such a bank. If they have not already found them in the service themselves, I suggest that they should ask the bankers and other people specially skilled in banking to find people whom they can recommend. It would be a great calamity if at any time these banks were closed because the people already chosen were not sufficiently able to manage them. If we go on to Clause 3, I think the suggestion that one-half of the funds shall be invested in Government funds is almost unwise. I would suggest that it would be much better to say that all the funds should be invested in Government funds, because in that case, if, as we hope, the savings bank habit increases, we might almost have the whole of the savings bank funds in Government securities, and by that way we might be able to reduce the rates that the Government have to pay in regard to loans. I think that there are many points to criticise in this Bill.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a, Standing Committee.

Orders of the Day — ARCHITECTS (REGISTRATION) BILL [Lords].

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Mr. TASKER: I beg to move, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."
The House will recollect that the original Registration Bill was sent to a Select Committee and that the Committee declined to report its recommendation. The Bill amended in many particulars was again brought before the House last year, when Members indicated so little inclination to take an interest in it that the House was counted out. I desire, first of all, to say that I am an advocate for the registration of architects. There is no evidence that the Bill is one which commends itself to the general body of practising architects, but rather is a recommendation of a small number of architects who may be designated a committee of the Royal Institute of British Architects, who are the promoters of this Bill. I made a suggestion that the whole of the practising architects who are members of that august body should be consulted and that a referendum should be taken. The Institute had appealed to the Privy Council to ask for powers—

It being half-past Seven of the clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means under Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed without Question, put.

Orders of the Day — LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (CO-ORDINATION OF PASSENGER TRAFFIC) BILL [By Order].

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Mr. BARNES: On a point of Order. May I ask, Mr. Speaker, whether you have considered the point of Order submitted to you, and, if so, whether you have decided that this Bill and the London Electric Railway Companies (Co-ordination of Passenger Traffic) Bill should be proceeded with as Private Bills or as Public Bills?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Barnes) was kind enough to tell me beforehand that he was going to raise this point of Order. I am
much obliged to him, because it has given me an opportunity of fully considering what I feel to be my duty on this occasion. I have considered the matter from all points of view, and I have definitely come to the conclusion that it is not my business to rule whether this Bill should be a Public Bill or a Private Bill. It must be left to the decision of the House.

Sir CYRIL COBB: This Bill for the coordination of passenger traffic, which is a London County Council Bill, and the companion Bill, which is brought forward by the London Electric Railway Companies, are the direct outcome of the recommendations of the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee. That Committee was set up under the London Traffic Act, 1924, by hon. Members opposite, and the composition of the Committee was settled by hon. Members opposite. The Act contained a number of provisions for the purpose of regulating and controlling traffic in London. Its main purpose was the setting up of the Advisory Committee with the object of advising the Minister of Transport on all matters for facilitating and improving the regulation of traffic in and near London. Accordingly, that Advisory Committee held a prolonged and extensive inquiry into the whole question of London traffic. It proceeded to hold its inquiries and discussions on the basis of two admitted facts (1) that there was an insistent and constant demand in London for additional railway facilities for passenger traffic in and out of London, and (2) that it was almost impossible for the capital to be found for the necessary development of those railways in and out of London whilst the extreme competition still existed between the tubes and the omnibuses on the one hand and the tramways of the London County Council on the other.
The Advisory Committee, therefore, came to this conclusion that:
Some scheme for bringing all forms of public passenger traffic transport under unified management, subject to public control, appeared to offer the only satisfactory and lasting solution of the problem.
This conclusion was reported to the Minister of Transport, who agreed that common management and a common fund was the only method of dealing with this question. He instructed the Advisory Committee to continue their activities in
order that they might have discussions with the companies and the municipalities concerned, to see what would be the best way of arriving at some combined action for the promotion of a scheme for common management and the establishment of a common fund. It was in this way that the detailed suggestions of the Advisory Committee were put forward. Those suggestions were put forward practically unanimously. The principle of the consolidation of passenger traffic under one body was maintained in these detailed suggestions. It was also insisted upon very strongly that if there was to be consolidation of all the passenger traffic under one body there must be public control in order to ensure the protection of the community (1) in regard to fares; (2) in regard to adequacy of service, and (3) in regard to development of the system as a whole and of the various parts of the system. The Advisory Committee went further and said that:
with the establishment of a common fund and a common management an effective public control body must be set up to ensure a programme of extension and development, proper scales of fares, adequate services capable of meeting the needs of the public, and sound financial arrangements for raising additional capital.
The body that was suggested as being the best public control body was the Minister of Transport assisted by the advisory committee. It was pointed out that the powers of the Minister of Transport would probably have to be extended in order that he might deal with the larger matters which came under the detailed recommendations of the Advisory Committee.
I understand that the Amendment upon the Paper aims at this question of the nature of the advisory and supervisory committee which is to look after the public interests in connection with the scheme proposed under the Bill. I think that attitude arises very largely from the fact that this is a, Private Bill and not a, Public Bill. The Advisory Committee as originally constituted was set up by a Public Bill, and I conceive that there may be some difficulty in assuming that that Advisory Committee could be altered by anything except a Public Bill. On the other hand, it is quite clear that the Advisory Committee under the original Act was not the Committee which had the actual powers in
its hands; the powers were in the hands of the Minister of Transport, subject to the advice of the Advisory Committee. It is difficult to see how hon. Members opposite can object to the composition of the Advisory Committee which is to fulfil its new functions under the Bill which we are bringing forward to-night, seeing that they themselves set up the Advisory Committee. If the Advisory Committee in advising the Minister, who has the power in his own hands, does not prove in the long run to be a satisfactory committee for the extensive purposes suggested in the two Bills, there will be no serious difficulty in amending the Act of 1924 and setting up some other kind of committee, perhaps a more representative advisory committee to assist the Minister of Transport.
Apart from the question of a public or a private Bill, the most important point in connection with this scheme, which the Advisory Committee have advised, is the question whether there is a sufficient and real safeguard for public control in the proposals that we are putting forward. The nature of the scheme which the Committee suggested was (1) that the ownership of the various undertakings should remain where it is at present, (2) that there should be a Common fund set up and that there should be an equitable basis established upon which all parties may start fairly as regards each other within the Common fund, (3) there must be common management, in order that the position should be established that all the undertakings should be operated as a single system, and that there should be a general scheme of fares on uniform lines, (4) that there must be an effective Public Control Body in order that the three preceding points might be always kept in mind, and (5) that there must be facilities for the development of the system in all directions and (6) that the duration of the scheme must he for not less than 42 years.
When the scheme came before the Minister of Transport he sent it to the London County Council. The county council considered the scheme in all its bearings in November, 1927, and passed this resolution:
The Council is of opinion that it would be in the interests of the travelling public of London if an equitable scheme embodying the principles of Common Management and
a Common Fund could be agreed upon by all authorities and bodies concerned in conveying London passenger traffic, and carried into effect, provided that the Council shall not be committed, without further consideration, to the principles or details of the scheme prepared by the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee.
In the following December a report on the advisory committee's scheme was considered, and the council put forward the following condition, which they said ought to be fulfilled in the event of any scheme being put forward:
That the interests of the travelling public should be safeguarded as to services and fares; that the Council's tramways should remain its own property and be properly maintained; that the value of the same should be equitably recognised both as to capital and revenue, and that the interest of displaced employés should be safeguarded.
The council came to the conclusion that unless agreement could be arrived at by which these four points could be safeguarded it would be impossible to go on with the suggestion of linking up with what we call the Combine. It was on considerations of that kind that the Minister of Transport, the advisory committee, the London County Council and the members of what is known as the Combine entered into negotiations in order to see whether they could hammer out a scheme which they could agree upon between themselves. The lines of this agreement are laid down in the Bill which is now before the House. Although it is not possible to include in the Bill all the details of the suggested agreement between the parties, it is possible to show, in the actual Clauses of the Bill, how closely we have followed the recommendations of the advisory committee and how careful we have been to insist upon all those preliminary safeguards for the public and the council's own property which are absolutely essential and without which no agreement can be entered into.
Hon. Members will find in Clauses 3 and 6 provisions for the general lines of common management and common fund. The most important of these Clauses is Clause 3 Sub-section (2), which deals with the question of the return on ranking capital. Clause 4 makes Parliament ultimately, through the Minister of Transport, the arbiter as to the validity of any agreement entered into between the parties, and Clause 5 insists
on the unification of the system and the maintenance of the associated undertakings in good repair and working order. Clause 9 allows any local authority within the London area to invoke the Minister of Transport in the case of any alteration of fares or withdrawal of services, and Clause 10 gives similar power to the Minister in connection with any part of the system. Clause 11 deals with the question of compensation to any of the council's employés who are dismissed or displaced.
Those are the main Clauses of the Bill. It is necessary, I think, to assure the House that a, Bill drawn on these lines will give security not only to the London County Council over its municipal undertakings from the financial standpoint, but also security to the public that they will have developing services, with every possible facility for travelling and that fares will be on a uniform basis in the long run. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I thought I should get some remark like that. When I say that "fares will be on a uniform basis in the long run," I mean that, they will at least be reduced in the long run to the fares which are now prevalent in competitive areas. Both these securities, that is the security for the council's own property and the security for the public, must necessarily rest upon the nature and character of the agreements which are entered into.
First of all, with regard to the security of the council's undertakings. No agreement is to be valid unless it contains a provision relating to a reasonable return to be paid on the actual capital of the undertaking, and that provision in the agreement is to have the particular sanction of the Minister of Transport. We get this position. The agreement which must contain this particular provision as to a reasonable return on capital and, secondly, this agreement with this provision must go to the Minister of Transport. The Minister may approve or disapprove. If he disapproves there is no agreement. If he approves, the provision is then adopted in the agreement itself and the agreement is then laid on the Table of the House for Parliament itself to say yea or nay to any of the provisions in it. Objection may be taken either to the provision relating to the
question of a reasonable return on capital, which has passed the Minister, or to any other Clause in the agreement, in which ease it will have to come to the House for decision. Parliament is, therefore, supreme in the matter of the agreement which is made in connection with the question of London traffic. Not only is the council's property secured, but in drawing up this agreement the London County Council would take the view that whatever ultimate figure might be fixed as a reasonable return, with the approval of the Minister, there should be no increased distribution of surplus revenue until substantial benefits, through reduced fares, have accrued to the public of London. These two provisions give security to the council's undertakings and also security to the public in regard to the services to be rendered.
There is another point in connection with the security to the public with which. I think the House ought to be seized. It should be borne in mind that at the present moment the council is only able to exercise influence in respect of traffic facilities over its own area, that is, over the tramway system of London. If this Bill becomes law, and we have consolidated in one body all the passenger traffic of London, then the county council itself will be able to exercise its own influence throughout the whole system of London passenger traffic. That is of enormous advantage to the travelling public of London. The council will be able to exercise their influence through this common management, of which they are a part, keeping the ownership of their own property in their own hands; an influence for the good of the public over the whole passenger traffic system in and around London.
That is the object of this Bill. Its main object is that the London County Council should make its own contribution towards solving the traffic problem in London; should take its own share in bringing to an end this very long protracted competition, which is injuring the production of further facilities for passenger traffic in London. It will also make for more economical management if we run the whole system on cooperative lines. What other action could be taken than the one that is proposed? The only other action it seems to me is that of absorp-
tion. The county council is far too proud of its own tramway system, which represents two-sevenths of the population of London carried and one-fifth of the capital invested in passenger traffic; far too proud of its own well-managed system—and the trams have been well run, they are a good concern—and would resent any notion of being absorbed in any other body. I am perfectly certain that nobody will deem it a practical proposition that the London tramway system should absorb the whole of the other passenger traffic system in and near London. The only proposal left is the method of co-ordination and co-operation, and out of that we hope to get greater facilities for London traffic. The property of the county council will be preserved intact, the development of the council's tramways will be provided for, and fares will be gradually reduced to the minimum which now obtains in competitive areas. For these reasons, I ask the House to give this Bill a Second Reading.

Mr. SCURR: Before moving the Amendment of which I have given notice, may I ask, Mr. Speaker, for your guidance? There are two Bills before the House, and, although they are not identical, they are coincident. The Amendment raises in some of its terms one particular question, and I should like to ask whether we shall be permitted to discuss the two Bills and the general question which is raised in connection with the organisation of London traffic.

Mr. SPEAKER: As regards the first point raised by the hon. Member, I understand that the matters with which the two Bills deal are much the same, and it will, therefore, be for the convenience of the House if both Bills are discussed together. As regards the second point which the hon. Member raises—the discussion on the Amendment he proposes to move—by the Standing Orders, we are almost compelled to have a general discussion on an Amendment of this kind. Hon. Members will remember that Standing Order 31 (A) lays it down that if on an Amendment to the Second or Third Reading of a Bill the Question "That the words proposed to be left out stand part" is put and carried, it precludes any discussion except on the
particular Amendment which the hon. Member proposes to move. The Amendment, however, deals with most of the subject matter contained in the Bills, and it will be the most convenient course that the whole discussion on the merits of the Bill should be taken on the Amendment which the hon. Member proposes to move.

Mr. SCURR: I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words:
this House is of opinion that proposals which vitally affect the problem of London traffic and the tramway and traffic powers and obligations of the London County Council, the City Corporation, the Middlesex County Council, and the local authorities of West Ham, East Ham, Croydon, Leyton, Walthamstow, Ilford, and the 28 Metropolitan boroughs, raise matters of public policy which should not be dealt with by Private Bill.
8.0 p.m.
I do not think any hon. Member of this House has had such an extraordinary task as that which has just been attempted by the hon. Member for Fulham West (Sir C. Cobb). He has submitted on behalf of this Bill an argument that these proposals are for the betterment of the organisation of London traffic and in the public interest. As a matter of fact, these two Bills, the London County Council (Co-ordination of Passenger Traffic) Bill and the London Electric Railway Companies (Co-ordination of Passenger Traffic) Bill, are the most extraordinary proposals to come before the House of Commons. In effect they are one Bill to give a monopoly to a particular private concern which has the largest control in passenger traffic at the present moment, and to hand over to this Combine public property which is controlled and managed by the London County Council. No such extraordinary proposal has ever been put before this House, and we shall be untrue to our tradition as the guardians of public liberty and rights if we give assent to Bills of this character. First of all, the House ought to have some idea as to the immensity of the problem which we are facing and which we are presuming to attempt to solve in these two Bills. Traffic in London is very different from the traffic in the great provincial cities. London, by its unique position, is largely a distributive, commercial, and financial centre. A very
large number of its workers are compelled to work in the centre of the town, and, according to the figures of the census of 1921, out of the totally-occupied population of 3,489,000, no less than 1,674,000 are engaged in transport communication, commerce, finance, public administration, and as clerks and drafts-men. That shows that anything that deals with the transport of such a large number of people cannot be the concern of private enterprise, but must be the concern of a public body. In the City of London, the night population is nearly 13,209, while the day population is 436,721. Westminster goes up from 141,000 to 386,000, and Holborn from 43,000 to 102,000. There has also been growing up certain suburbs of London in which certain industries are carried on. There is another curious thing. There move out of one metropolitan borough to others a certain number of people which is balanced during the day—I am referring only to workers—by people who come in from other parts. In Hammersmith there is an outward flow of 32,204 people every day, and an inward flow of 30,102. In St. Pancras, there is an outward flow of 51,000 and an inward movement of 58,000. Again, these figures show the necessity of having one control which should have all the time in its mind the public interest and not the earnings of profit for private enterprise.
Another extraordinary fact is the growth of traffic, during the last 25 years in regard to the number of millions of passengers carried. In 1902, on the local railways, these numbered 277,000,000, and in 1925, 556,000,000. On the trunk railways, the number has grown from 188,000,000 to 319,000,000. On the tramways, it has grown from 361,000,000 to 979,000,000, and on the omnibuses, which have the good fortune of being able to travel outside the ring, and not to be handicapped as railways or tramways are by legislation of this House, the numbers have risen from 280,000,000 to 1,671,000,000. The journeys per head of the population have grown in the same time from 166,000,000 to 456,000,000. These figures are very remarkable. It may be a revelation to many hon. Members to find that, if the fares were raised by the shortening of the journey's length, to the extent of a farthing, the increased cost to the public would be £3,873,958. The hon. Member for West Fulham gave expression
to the hope that, in the long run, there would be a reduction in the fares; but it is not a reduction in the fares in the long run that we want; it is a reduction in the fares on the short journeys. Figures of that kind, I think, without any other argument which might be put before this House, make it important that this question should be dealt with by the Government of the day in a public Measure which this House might be able to discuss in every detail, and any agreement which might be entered into as a result would be in the Schedule of the Bill and would be open to the criticism of Parliament.
So far as the Bills are concerned, Parliament is being asked to give the London County Council and the Combine a blank cheque which both may sign, but on the London County Council's cheque would be marked "Returned to drawer," because they have handed over the tramways to the Combine without any return. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Transport smiles. We all know, and we have known for some years, that, if there is one thing in the world which he does not like to take any trouble about it is the question of transport. I often wonder what he is thinking about. I feel certain he is not thinking about the Ministry of Transport. As I look at him gazing into space, I feel all the time that what he is thinking about are the beautiful fantasies and dreams which are presented to him by the anti-Socialist Union of which he is the President. The present position and the difficulties in regard to London traffic are due to the pusillanimity of the right hon. Gentleman who has not faced this question. If there are any villains in the piece, they are those which constitute His Majesty's Government. If the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Transport had faced his duty, we would not have found the London County Council in such a hurry to do what they are doing now.
The question of precedents has been alluded to. If one turns to Erskine May, they will and many references to Bills which have dealt with questions concerning the public interests in the Metro polis, and which, except certain specific Measures, have been private Bills. But there are two specific instances with regard to public Bills. About 30 years ago, we had a very terrible water famine
in the East End of London, and, when it was found that the private enterprise water companies were not able to provide an efficient water supply, the Government of the day—and it was a Conservative Government, one which had a little more courage than the present one—passed a Bill which constituted the Metropolitan Water Board. Reflections may be made as to the constitution of that authority; but it has given an efficient supply of water. There is another service which looks after the docks of London. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), who was President of the Board of Trade at that time in the Liberal Government, approached the London County Council to have a great municipal authority to look after the docks of London. The majority of the people at the County Hall are chary of taking responsibility, and the offer of the right hon. Gentleman was declined. But he went forward with it, and carried as a public Bill the Port of London Authority Bill. If water is so important, if docks are so important as great public interests, surely the traffic of London is equally important as a great private interest.
Bills were brought in by the London Electricity Companies some time ago. I do not know whether the hon. Member for North Wandsworth (Sir H. Jackson) is happy about the results which followed those Bills. A Conservative meeting was held some time ago in Wandsworth, at which I think one of the hon. Members for Wandsworth was present, and there a protest was made that the cost of electricity was so high in Wandsworth. A well-known Conservative asked, "Why cannot we have the same price for electricity in Wandsworth as in the neighbouring borough of Battersea?" The reason is that there is a municipal supply in Battersea. I do not think hon. Members opposite will suggest that the "Daily Express" is a Socialist newspaper, but that newspaper states that its campaign to reduce the price of electricity has been successful in more than 200 different areas, and there was set out a great list of dividends which are very high. The hon, Member for West Fulham in his statement rather led the House to believe that this Bill is following closely
the recommendations of the Traffic Advisory Committee. I do not wish to enter into needless controversy with the hon. Member, but I think that before he made a statement of that kind he ought to have consulted his friends on the London Traffic Advisory Committee, because they have issued a statement in which they point to the very important differences between the proposals of the London County Council and those of the Traffic Advisory Committee.
I would like the House to understand the exact reasons why we are discussing this question to-night. So far as we on this side are concerned we are in no sense of the word against any proper system of co-ordination of passenger traffic in London. We are very pleased to welcome that great man Lord Ashfield's recognition of the broad foundation of Socialist economics, that competition is an evil. We agree that if you have a number of trams or omnibuses running with a large number of empty seats, there is no advantage to the travelling public, because those empty seats have to be paid for somehow or other, as well as the wastage of road space. But when you say that competition is a bad thing and that it must go, in the interest of the public, I suggest that, when you have co-ordination by reason of the great public interests involved, it is absolutely necessary that the controlling and co-ordinating and owning authority should be a publicly constituted and democratic body. That is not the proposal of the Bill.
We find that the Traffic Advisory Committee proceeded first of all to consider the question of a common fund. It is necessary to quote exactly, because it has been said against us that as all the members except one, ordinary and additional, of the London Traffic Advisory Committee signed that Report, we are committed to the Report. I want to say clearly now that in the political sense there was no representative of the Labour party sitting on that Advisory Committee. Its constitution at the present time is such that, from a political point of view, all the public representatives are members of the party opposite. The extra members, who are not called upon to decide upon policy unless the others ask for advice, include three trade union representatives, but they sit there not as political members of the Labour party but exactly in the same way as repre-
sentatives of the Underground Combines, representing a particular interest. This Report was presented by them on this common fund and common management. But the fundamental thing that underlay the Report when it was presented with the signatures of the three trade union representatives, was the fact that all the way through there should be a controlling public authority.
The procedure which the Committee visualised was this: First of all, coordination is necessary. To bring about co-ordination, we want a common fund. In order that the common fund shall be properly managed and under common management we must have, first of all, negotiations between the various interests.
It is thought, however, that no useful purpose would he served by attempting to negotiate unless the Committee were in a position to indicate the outlines of a scheme, coupled with an assurance that in its main principles it would meet with the approval of the Government, and that if it were generally acceptable to the local authorities and companies concerned, the Government would be prepared either to promote or to support the necessary legislation to enable effect to be given to it.
I draw especial attention to the words "if it were generally acceptable to the local authorities and companies." What have we in these particular Bills? There is only one local authority, the London County Council. The London County Council is the largest tramway authority within the area of Greater London, but its being the largest authority is no reason why it should ride rough-shod over the ideas of other local authorities who are also tramway managers and undertakers. West Ham, East Ham, Croydon, Ilford and Leyton are to be left out in the cold. The Underground Company, with all its ramifications and clever interlocking of companies and subsidiary companies is not the only pebble on the beach. There are also the main line railway companies, with a very considerable amount of suburban traffic.
Under this Bill co-ordination may be only imperfectly secured because right through we find that the safeguards are illusory and that the proposals do not follow in any sense of the word the lines suggested by the Traffic Advisory Committee Report, and therefore they ought to be condemned. The Traffic Advisory Committee has put forward certain
points of view in regard to the differences in the Reports. They say:
In the first place we wish to draw attention to the main points in which the scheme under the Bills differs from the scheme outlined in the Blue Report, and apart from minor points these may be summarised under two heads: (1) The Blue Report envisaged all the passenger transport undertakings with the exception of the main line suburban railways coming at the same time into a co-ordinated scheme with a common fund and a common management (2) It provided for public control as set out in paragraph 6 of the Blue Report.
Here is another quotation:
We understand that the promoters are in agreement with our recommendations on the two points referred to above but they are advised that it is not practicable to give effect to them by Private Bill legislation because upon the first point it is obvious that no private promoter could obtain powers to compel other undertakers to enter into agreements with them, though the Bills do in fact confer enabling powers upon the undertakers to enter into agreement with the two promoters if they are willing to do so.
Further, with regard to the second point we understand that it would not be practicable under Private Bills legislation to set up public control in the form and with the scope referred to in the Blue Report.
What is the hurry in this matter? Everyone knows that when the first proposals were put forward by the Traffic Advisory Committee it was understood by all the parties concerned that it would take at least two years of negotiation before a Bill could be brought in—yet here we have, in a dying Parliament, Pills of this kind being rushed through. It is rather amusing to find that these two bodies are supposed to be promoting Bills for the same purpose. They are supposed to be in agreement. The London County Council, in its Preamble, lays it down that the Bill is promoted on account of the report of the Traffic Advisory Committee and in accordance with its recommendations. When I look at the Preamble of the Combine's Bill, I find I have to give them credit for a little more honesty and a little less hypocrisy. They do not refer to the Traffic Advisory Committee. They know that this is a good business deal for them. They are promoting a Bill very similar to the Bill which they promoted in 1915. That Bill was for the establishment of a common fund between their own undertakings. That was all right and I have not the slightest doubt that it has been very beneficial, though no one, except those in the
inner secrets of the Combine knows the exact ramifications and workings of the common fund.
What the Combine knows, however, is that if these two Bills were passed into law the London County Council's tramway system would simply become a subsidiary company of the Combine, no matter what might be said by the elected members of the London County Council, no matter how they might grumble, and no matter how other local authorities might make representations. The Clause which is supposed to give the local authorities power to make representations leaves out the important Metropolitan borough councils. It only allows the City Corporation and tramway authorities outside to do so. When one finds this proposal put forward in this way, one feels it to be part and parcel of a-great public policy which is being pursued by the Conservative party against, every form of public ownership. It is a counter offensive. They have come to the conclusion that the hest form of defence is attack. They first of all come along and say, "Let us get rid of the beam wireless." Now in this matter they say, "We will not bring the Government into this. They can stand aside as supposedly impartial persons." If ever there was a subservient political body it is the Municipal Reform Party in the London County Council. In the provinces one finds representatives of Conservative interests on our great municipal authorities who would not for one moment stand what is stood by the Municipal Reform Party in the London County Council. Their subservience is shown day after day. They run across from the County Hall to ask the Tory Government, "What shall we do next to please you?"
Attacks have been made upon the tramway system of the London County Council. There was a great struggle to establish that tramway system for the people of London and, in that connection, I would pay my tribute to a man who was once a Member of this House—the late Sir John Benn—for the great work which he did. Now we have attacks on the tramway system and misrepresentations concerning it. The name of the hon. Member for Central Wandsworth is on both these Bills. I suggest to him that, if he is going to back Bills of this
character, dealing with the tramway system of London, he ought first to give accurate accounts regarding that tramway system when he is asked questions about it in the public body of which he is a member. I find that a question was put by Mr. Herbert Morrison to the Chairman of the Highways Committee of the London County Council, on 12th February, in the following terms:
Whether his attention has been drawn to a statement by Sir Henry Jackson, M.P., at a meeting of the Wandsworth Metropolitan Borough Council on 29th January as reported in a local newspaper to the following effect:
Sir Henry in reply to Alderman Hurley said that for the last few years the London County Council had lost £250,000 a year on their tramway workings. In addition, the repayment of the debt charges on the London County Council tramways was £300,000 a year, but in the last three years, in consequence of the grave financial position of the tramways, the Treasury had permitted the suspension of repayment. Thus, the London County Council, in addition to its positive losses, had lost half-a-million pounds, which represented a rate of 2½d. Unless something was done in regard to tramway finances the ratepayers would have to face the prospect of having 2½d. added to their rates when the debt charges were paid.
Whether the Chairman of the Highways Committee can make any statement as to the accuracy or otherwise of the statements made.
The reply of the Vice-Chairman was as follows:
The answer to the first question is in the negative.
He, apparently, is not such a careful student of the local Press of Wandsworth as my friend Mr. Morrison. The answer continued:
The facts are as follows: With the approval of His Majesty's Treasury the accounts for the three years ended 31st March, 1927, made no provision for repayment of that part of the capital expenditure up to 31st March, 1924. which is subject to a 25 years' term for redemption. This temporary suspension relieved the accounts for the three years of a large annual charge roughly computed at £300,000 but the obligation had to be resumed in 1927–28. In such year there was a deficiency after paying all debt charges of £226,211. In the current year the deficiency is estimated at £43,804.
That is very different from the position put forward by the hon. Member for Central Wandsworth. I have had the pleasure of working with him in municipal administration for a good many years and I regret that he has allowed
himself, by reason of his party adhesions, to be brought into this particular business arid that he should be concerned in this ramp which is being played on the people of London. I think I might say of him:
Indeed the Idols I have loved so long,
Have done my Credit in men's eyes much wrong;
Have drown'd my Honour in a shallow Cup,
And sold my Reputation for a Song.
When I come to the question of whether the trams actually pay or not, I find that according to the estimates of the London County Council's Highways Committee for 1928–29 the surplus is £650,000. The interest on the debt—and it is to be remembered that the debt of a municipal body is not really a debt at all but is outstanding capital—is £273,005, making a net profit on the estimates of £377,015. When I remember the speech of Lord Ashfield on the London United Traction Company and their management and how they had not paid anything on their preference dividends, I can quite understand why he is so anxious to secure control of the London County Council trams. The vice-chairman of the Council stated in January last that the original estimates for 1928–29 as approved by the Council anticipated a surplus on working of £618,990 and a net deficiency of £103,529. This so-called deficiency really means that when the transaction is completed the London County Council will have an additional £450,000 worth of assets for a payment of £103,529. If a good many concerns in the iron and steel trade, in the coal trade, and in the textile trade in the great boom years only carried on their finances in the way in which the finances of the London County Council tramways have to be carried on, we should not hear so much of the depression in trade as we are hearing now.
To say that the tramways have been subsidised out of the rates is an absolute travesty of the facts. What are the facts? From 1897, when the tramways were electrified, to 1928 the total net contribution from the rates to the trams has been £1,226,894, but the council has during that time paid off, or provided for, out of the tramway surplus, no less a sum than £8,752,035. In other words, we have a net gain to the citizens of London of £7,325,141. There is another thing which Lord Ashfield, who is an
astute man, who wants to do the best he can for the great international financial organisation with which he is connected knows, and that is that in the next few years the debt which is being paid off by the London County Council trams is going to continue to be paid off, but at the same time it will make a greater and more valuable asset. In 1937 there will only be—and these tramways have cost £17,000,000—£4,481,270 of the balance outstanding; in 1947, £2,425,550; and in 1952, £1,675,990. It will be seen that in little more than 20 years the tramways will be substantially free of debt of any kind and will stand as a valuable asset in the books of the citizens of London. We, on this side, want to keep them for the citizens of London and not to hand them over to any private enterprise.
I think I have quoted enough to show that the tramways have paid all the way through. The hon. Member for West Fulham made the remark that he hoped in the long run we should come to a time when we might have fares on a competitive basis on the competitive routes of the Combine and the tramways. The one thing which the Combine fears is the fact that this great municipal undertaking is the only safeguard that the public have for cheap and reasonable fares, and if proof of that statement be wanted, we can see it in the negotiations which took place in regard to the 2d. mid-day fare of the London County Council. On those tramways between certain hours, roughly from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m., any person may travel for 2d. over the whole journey along which those trams may go. That is a wise thing on the part of the traffic manager, who knows that in those hours-of the day the trams are not likely to be filled, and he encourages people to fill them, with the result that a very considerable increase in the tramway revenue has been obtained.
When Sir. Eric Geddes was Minister of Transport, a message came to the London County Council, in which they were asked to enter into negotiations with the Combine because the question as to whether there should be a minimum fare of was being considered, and the Combine said they objected to the 2d. midday fare on principle. To them, it was a matter of principle, and from their point of view it was bad. That majority at County Hall that is so sub-
servient to all private interests thought they would be able to meet the Combine, and a special meeting of the Highways Committee was called, which made a recommendation to the Council that those fares should be suspended. A special meeting was called by the Chairman of the Council, but, unfortunately for the Combine, it was called in the holiday season, and not even members of the subservient majority could afford to come up, from their holidays for the benefit of the Combine. The result was that 36 Liberal and Labour members were for keeping the fares, against the 35 municipal members.
See the effect of that. The Combine has since put the 2d. fare into force on the routes where their own omnibuses run along the tramways. If any Member of this House ever gets on an omnibus where there are no tramway routes, he will get no 2d. fare, and so far from there being any idea in the mind of the Combine of reducing fares, only recently the Combine has acquired the controlling interest in one of the private companies, the London Public Omnibus Company, and what has happened? Wherever that Public Omnibus Company runs along the same routes as the London General Omnibus Company, the fares have been put up. Here is a very simple illustration. I come to this House every day in a 76 omnibus, part of whose route is along a tramway route, so that you get a reduction of the fare. You used, when the Public Omnibus Company was running and the cheap fare was in force at midday, to be able to come from Stoke Newington to Victoria for 5d., and outside the midday hours for 6d. To-day, since they took over the Public Omnibus Company, you can only get as far as the Army and Navy Stores for 5d. The consequence is that people who want to go from this House to Victoria have to pay 2d. because of the co-ordination of traffic between the Public Omnibus Company and the Combine.
The great point which is at issue to-day is that of the interests of public ownership and private ownership, of public control and private control. I want to give two quotations from a very eminent London citizen, a member of the Conservative party, a man whose Conservatism will in no sense of the word be
doubted, a man to whom I think the name of Socialism is even anathema, a man who occupied the position of Chairman of the Finance Committee of the London County Council and of Chairman of that body—Sir John Gatti. In 1925, when he was presenting the annual estimates to the Council, he drew a distinction between private and public interests in regard to the control of public services. So well did Sir John Gatti put this forward that I will trouble the House with two quotations. Speaking of a private company, he said:
Simply stated, the primary object of a company is to earn a profit by supplying certain commodities or providing certain facilities for the public. The company is essentially an association of individuals, of (to use the old picturesque term) adventurers, who believe that its capital can be made productive in certain ways and which is prepared to risk that capital in that belief. … It wants its capital employed to produce profits which will be returned in the shape of dividends.
He went on in regard to public interests to say:
A municipality going into business is actuated by totally different motives. Although the possibility of profit need not be excluded, that should not be its primary objective. Its motive, indeed I should say its only justification, should be that the welfare and the needs of the community are so bound up in, so dependent upon the manner, extent and method in which a particular industry or enterprise is managed and developed as to differentiate it from ordinary trading and to make it desirable that it should be run more out of regard to the advantages it can yield to the community as a whole than to the profit it can show. A municipality does not go into business because it hopes to make money by it. A municipality goes into business because it thinks that by trading in a particular way it can become a more efficient instrument of good government.
That is a statement not of a wild Socialist, but of a sound Conservative municipal statesman, and I accept it in every sense as putting forward the Socialist conception of municipal trading. I think that I have put sufficient arguments before the House to show that these Bills are wrong in principle, and that any Bill affecting the traffic of London should be promoted by public and not by private Measures. We are asked to give powers to the County Council and the Combines to enter into agreements in the dark, agreements which we do not know, and which will vitally affect the interests of the people of London.
I am a Londoner. If I may close on a personal note, I may say that I was brought to London when I was six months old from far away Australia. For 47 years I lived in one street in an East End borough. By the generosity of one of the citizens of London who endowed my school I received my education. I have worked in her offices, her factories, and her workshops; I have tramped her streets for seven months vainly in search of work, when perhaps she seemed hard and cold. I love her people. I love her associations. I love to think of her great river and of all the pageants that have passed on it from the time when the "Golden Hind" anchored off Greenwich to the time when great liners came to King George's Dock, to think of the commerce that goes on there and of the keenly witted people who take life so philosophically. I think of all these things, and I love her with a great ardour and a great passion, and I resent with all my being the attempts, which are being made to depose her from the proud position of an Imperial Mother and to degrade her to the position of a mistress to pander to the desires of every soulless, selfish, money-making combine.

Mr. W. BENNETT: I beg to second the Amendment.
It is not an easy task for a newcomer to follow such an excellent speech as that which has just been delivered. The hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Scurr) has covered the ground admirably. The reason that I have been allowed to second the Amendment is that I represent a London constituency, Battersea, many thousands of whose citzens come up to the City every day. I made this question of the trams and the Combine a leading question in the by-election which has just taken place in Battersea. Serious fault was found with me by no less an authority than the "Times" newspaper for fighting a Parliamentary election on what they called local issues. This is not a local question at all. A great many people of London and of Battersea are in deadly fear that the result of this transaction, if this private Bill be passed, will be an increase in the fares. The principle involved is important. The Bill proposes to hand over to a private business—the Combine—the right to make a tax on the citizens. The Bill says that the combination of these people
"shall" charge such fares as will cover the dividends on the whole of the shares of all the component companies in the Combine. I understand that some of these shares have not paid much in the past. No figure is put down as to what the dividend shall be. The Bill speaks of a "reasonable return." What is the reasonable return to be? There is no definition of it. The gentlemen who are promoting this Bill say that the public are protected, but what kind of protection is it? We have been fighting on the question of bureaucracy as introduced by a Conservative Government. Time after time power has been given to a Minister which should have been retained by Parliament. This Bill says that the Combine "shall" charge such fares, while the county council alone "may," if the Minister permits, object to a rise in the fares. Here are the words "shall" and "may" on the two sides once more.
There is not the slightest doubt in the minds of any of the people who travel by tramway from the suburbs every day that the removal of the competition between the tramways and the omnibuses, will inevitably result in a rise in fares. The promoters talk about an equalisation of fares. One hon. Gentleman said that all the fares would be reduced to the level of the fares on a competitive route, but another way of equalising fares is to raise them to those on the non-competitive routes and to shorten the fare stages. To do what is proposed in this Measure by a private Bill will set up a precedent. If it be possible to get rid of the London trams by a private Bill, why should it not be possible to get rid of the Post Office or to hand over the mines to a commercial combine by a private Bill?
I strongly object to the Bill on the question of finance. I understand that the London County Council have twice borrowed money from the public and given in the prospectus the London County Council Tramways as an added security to the people who lent money. Does anyone doubt that if this Combine wants to raise fresh money for the extension of their various undertakings, they will in their prospectus once more quote the already twice mortgaged London tramway asset to their shareholders? That seems to me exceedingly doubtful finance, savouring of the bucket shop. Lastly, I want to know about the sinking fund. So far as I can see,
nothing is said in the Bill as to whether the sinking fund for the amortisation of capital raised for the London tramways is to be continued or not. I presume that it is to be, but if so it must be in the agreements which are not scheduled and which we have not seen. I do not know whether there is any specific legislation requiring it, but it has been understood for a long time that all municipal and public undertakings must on their formation institute a sinking fund for the cancellation of the debt, the money borrowed for starting those undertakings. That is so in the case of the London County Council Tramways. Is that sinking fund to be continued under the Combine? If so, why should the Combine have the benefit of the tremendous and growing asset due to the paying off of the debt on those trams? What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and if there must be a compulsory sinking fund in connection with that part of the Combine's undertaking known as the London tramways why should not the principle be extended to the rest of the capital of the Combine? Now that it is to become a semi-public undertaking, why should not a sinking fund be applied to the whole of the capital of this great Combine? That would be only fair and right.
This is an important principle. It is the principle which makes clear the issue between the two other parties and the party to which I have the honour to belong this question of a sinking fund for the repayment of capital. It is a point against private enterprise that this principle has not been adopted. If the same principle which we apply in the case of the London County Council tramways had been insisted upon in connection with our coal mines, our railways and the cotton industry, we should not have been in the mess in which we find ourselves to-day. The vested interests would have been removed long ere this, and we should be free to deal with these undertakings. If only from the point of view of the people who lend money to these concerns, the finance of socialism, the finance of paying off debts, is much sounder than the financial procedure under private enterprise.
9.0 p.m.
Finally, I would like to appeal to hon. Members opposite. I am told that it is quite useless to appeal to them on such
a question. I have heard that said of them for a good many years, but I do not think I quite believed it until now. It is said that it makes no defference whether hon. Members have a financial interest in a Bill, whether they are shareholders and are going to benefit by the handing over of public assets to the combine, that they can vote all the same; that even though they have not heard a single one of the arguments used against the Bill, they will come in at the end of the discussion and vote us down. Apparently that is true. Everything I have seen in this House up to now has confirmed what I have been told. One reason why the voting strength of the party opposite is going steadily downhill in the country is that the electors are realising that in the House of Commons affairs are discussed before empty benches and the vote is a mechanical vote having no relation to the arguments which have been put forward. At the General Election in June the people of London will know how this question of the tramways has been discussed, and how much interest has been taken in it by hon. Members. It is the custom of hon. Members opposite to stump the country proclaiming to their fellow-countrymen or to any foreigners who may care to listen the absolute incapacity of this country to run even a tripe shop. They keep on crabbing their own country. They say that the London County Council, the municipalities, this honourable House, any Committee of this House, are utterly incapable of running a business, but that we must hand all business over to private enterprise, to people whose boasted incentive is the making of private profits. That may be patriotism, but it does not appeal to us. The people of this country, looking at the hon. Members who make these statements, whether it be the Prime Minister or the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and remembering the record of the Conservative party in governing the country, have unfortunately come to believe what they say is true. Hon. Members opposite ought to know of what they are capable, and if they have come to the conclusion that it is impossible for the Conservative party to run such a thing as a tramway undertaking, I would appeal to them to give other people a chance to prove of what they are capable. The principle characteristic of the
English nation is its capacity for managing public business. I do not much care what their political opinions are, it is my belief that any ordinary committee of Englishmen—if the vested interests be taken away—are quite capable of running our post office, our waterworks, our electric light undertakings, our coalmines or our railways, in a manner unequalled in any other country in the world. I appeal to hon. Members opposite to vote this Measure down. A matter of real importance such as this, involving the principles I have mentioned, ought not to be sent to a Committee upstairs. The whole House ought to discuss it. The whole House, without any Whips on, ought to be left to settle a matter of such primary importance.

Sir HENRY JACKSON: I agree with the statement that the issue to-night is one of primary importance to that great mass of Londoners who live in Greater London. In the area, perhaps the most important area in the world, within a radius of 25 miles from Charing Cross there are 7,000,000 people, and by its vote next Tuesday night this House is going to decide whether they are or are not to have better traffic facilities. London is growing. On its rim new satellite towns are arising, created in order to relieve the housing congestion, and new manufactories are coming into the area. It is of vital interest that we should consider the needs of these people, to whom transport is as important as food or clothing or housing. In spite of the rhetoric of the hon. Member for South Battersea (Mr. W. Bennett), let me assure him that the issue which we are going to settle next week when the vote is taken is not that of Socialism. The problem is not whether private ownership or nationalisation is the better. These two Bills are in the nature of a compromise. Whatever may be done under these two Bills, it is still open to the hon. Members of the Labour party and to my hon. Friends to continue their course towards their respective goals. There is no absorption of one side or the other. Each side after next Tuesday night can respect each other's opinions, but I say to this House that if these proposals can be justified in improving the transport services of the whole of London, then they should meet with general acceptance.
The object of these Bills is to provide London with a better type of transport service. It is preposterous and unreasonable that the transport of London's millions should be conducted upon an unbusinesslike and unremunerative basis. The two Bills before the House represent a vast amount of negotiation and inquiry extending over many years. The principle of the co-ordination of London transport in some form or another has been repeatedly urged for the last 20 years. The Royal Commission of 1905 and the Kennedy Jones Committee of 1920 dealt with that problem on these lines, but the first real step on the lines of progress took place when my hon. Friends above the Gangway introduced the London Traffic Act, 1924. That was the chief child of that administration, and that was when the first great step took place. The London Traffic Act was definitely and primarily passed to deal with the problem of London traffic, and the chief part of that Act was the constitution of the London Traffic Advisory Committee.
I am going to enter a word of protest against something which was said by the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Scurr). The hon. Member stated that while some members of that committee were trade unionists and might be suspected of holding a certain political faith, most of the ordinary members of that committee belonged to the Conservative party. I am going to ask the hon. Member for Mile End to withdraw that statement, because the London Traffic Advisory Committee includes several distinguished Civil Servants who represent the central government, and we have always maintained that those Civil Servants should not be accused of political bias, and I hope the hon. Member will withdraw that statement.

Mr. SCURR: The hon. Member seems to have misinterpreted what I said. My reference was to those who represented the local authorities. I said nothing about the Civil Servants. I still maintain that most of those who are elected to the local authorities are members of the party opposite.

Sir H. JACKSON: As long as it is clear that there was no suggestion of political bias against the Civil Servants who are members of the Advisory Com-
mittee, I have no hesitation in accepting the hon. Member's statement. Let us now consider the constitution of the Advisory Committee. It comprises distinguished Civil Servants representing the Ministry of Transport, the Home Office and the Metropolitan and City of London Police; it also comprises representatives of all local authorities in the London Traffic area, as well as representatives of organised labour, including the Transport Workers' Union and the National Union of Railwaymen. It also includes representatives of the Transport, Passenger and Commercial Operators in the area. I say that a body of that kind which sits in a strictly judicial capacity to advise the Ministry of Transport is one that ought to command the respect of this House, and of all unprejudiced people. Speaking as a member of that body and as one closely associated with its numerous inquiries and its committee work, I say that the Committee has discovered the limitations which are imposed upon us by that Act. It is quite clear that the great problem of dealing with London traffic is hampered by the limitations of the London Traffic Act, and one of our main objects has been, by inquiries and investigations, to be able ultimately to come to this House with some solution of the ever-growing problem of London traffic.
We have had three inquiries in the districts of North, North-East, East and South-East London. Those inquiries were very costly, but they were justified. May I summarise the conclusions at which we arrived?
The first was that the petitioners in those crowded districts, including men and women who had to go to work early in the morning and return at night, thoroughly made out their case and justified up to the hilt the need for improved facilities in those crowded districts. The second conclusion to which we came was that while in the rush hours of the morning and night the conditions were bad in the extreme, during the rest of the day there was a dreadful waste and loss of economic service, and only about one-third of the accommodation provided between 10 o'clock in the morning and 4 o'clock in the afternoon was occupied. That shows a very bad state of things, because accommodation that is not used
is not only wasteful but very costly, and it was the elimination of the waste which was the most formidable problem with which we had to deal.
The third conclusion is that all the services of every type of transport are necessary. We need the suburban railways with their high speed and stopping trains to connect the outer suburbs with the centre. We also need the tramways and omnibuses in order to cope with heavy short distance travelling. Any person in this House or outside who states that the London trams ought to be scrapped is worthy only of Bedlam. The London trams provide a service which is vital to London transport, and they carry 1,000,000,000 passengers every year. Consequently, it is impossible to contemplate a London traffic system without the magnificent service of London's tramways. Therefore, we can dismiss as idle and contemptuous the cry that those who are supporting this Bill are in favour of scrapping the trams. We were impressed with their good management.
The next point which we found was the very grave financial condition of the London tramways. Prior to the War and up to 1922, practically the whole of the municipal tramways of London, with the exception of two tiny ones which were not of any consequence, were not only paying their way but they were making a profit. In the financial year ending 31st March, 1922, the publicly-owned tramways of London, after meeting all their charges, actually made a profit on their undertakings of £589,493. From March, 1922, onwards we have to tell the steady, grim story of financial loss, and our opinion is that that loss was entirely due to the intensive omnibus competition. Taking the London County Council tramway figures: their losses for the year 1924–25 were £278,000; for the year 1925–26, £114,629 for the year 1926–27, £275,159; and for the year 1927–28, £226,221. For the three years 1924–27, as has already been pointed out, the Treasury sanctioned the suspension of their redemption of debt charge of approximately £300,000 a year. Had the Treasury not sanctioned that remission of debt, the ratepayers of London would have had £300,000 a year added to the figures I have given and there would have been altogether a loss on the trams of about £500,000 a
year. Therefore, when speaking to my constituents, I stated that for those three years the losses would have represented a rate of something in the neighbourhood of 2½d. in the £ on the ratepayers of London. We were anxious to do all that we could for the tramways. The London Traffic Advisory Committee, with the limited powers at their disposal, have stabilised the omnibus position on the London streets. We declined to allow omnibuses to be any longer in open competition with the tramways. We recognised that, if that competition went on, it would end by almost killing the tramways. As a consequence of the limited protection that we have been able to give the tramways, they have unquestionably improved their financial position—

Sir ELLIS HUME-WILLIAMS: At the expense of inconvenience to the public.

Sir H. JACKSON: I am not arguing that for the moment, but, in view of their grave losses during those three years, we have protected them as best we could by our Stabilisation Orders, of which the Minister, on our advice, has approved, and the position of the tramways is improving. In the year 1927–28 they restarted their repayment of the redemption charge of £300,000, and we are advised that, on the estimates for the present year, their deficiency will he down considerably. The point that I want to emphasize to all well-wishers of the trams—and I count myself amongst them—is that the only way in which the tramways can in the end become financially profitable to London is by the acceptance of these two Bills. The limited protection which we have been, able to give to them is for the moment having a good result, but what guarantee have we, or what guarantee has this House, that that protection can be indefinitely continued. At present there is a state of equilibrium, with a possibility of development and improvement in tramway services, but I am sure my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport will allow me to say that his Order in regard to the replacement of solid tyres by pneumatic tyres will make it possible for an omnibus to run at 20 miles an hour instead of 12. Again, as a consequence of last year's Budget proposals there will, if those
proposals be carried out, be a reduction in the licence duties—

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): About 20 per cent.

Sir H. JACKSON: Therefore, it will be obviously to the interest of the London General Omnibus Company, and indeed to the general public, to replace solid tyres by pneumatic tyres, and that will increase their possibilities of speed over tramway routes. I am advised that the London General Omnibus Company are proposing to replace the solid tyres on all their fleet by pneumatic tyres. Is it to be suggested that all that outlay of capital is to be nullified by not allowing them an increased rate of speed over tramway routes? If it is made possible for an omnibus to make more journeys over a tramway route, that is precisely the same as increasing the number of omnibuses, and, therefore, it is possible that we may get hack to that competition between omnibuses and trams in London which had such a disastrous result in years 1923 to 1927. Therefore, with this knowledge I had no hesitation in saying to my constituents in Wandsworth—and this is what caused so much comment by Mr. Herbert Morrison, and which has been repeated here to-night—that, if that intensive competition takes place again, converting, as it did before, a large profit into a large loss, the cost of that to the ratepayers of London may be just as serious as it was in those years.

Mr. B. SMITH: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us how, under the present Act, which requires the maintenance of even headway, speed can be a, factor in increasing competition?

Sir H. JACKSON: My hon. Friend knows that it is a question of schedule, to be approved by Scotland Yard and not a question of headway. There is that possibility in the future, and, therefore, if the friends of the tramways desire to see the prosperity of the tramways continue, so that they may once again become a source of income to the London ratepayers, it is their duty to support these two Bills, in which further protection will be given and a share in the common fund.
To return to our inquiries, the next conclusion we arrived at was that there
is quite sufficient money in the London traffic services to give the public all the service that they desire, and to give a reasonable return on capital. Finally, we were very much concerned with the growing toll of accidents in the streets. In the year 1927, no fewer than 1,056 people were killed in the Metropolitan Police area. [Interruption.] My hon. Friends say that that is "sob stuff," but, if they had a child killed as a consequence of this intensive street congestion, I do not think they would so describe it.

Mr. THURTLE: Do not cover up your greed for dividends by talking about children being killed.

Sir H. JACKSON: Those are the conclusions at which we arrived as a consequence of our inquiries. What was our solution? It is quite impossible to put more surface vehicles on the road. You cannot increase the road services, whether by omnibuses or by trams, and the only solution that we could see was by the projection of more tubes and highspeed railways. That was the solution in 1926, and it is the only solution to-day. That suggested remedy was, naturally, put to the two great organisations, the one responsible for the tubes and the other for the suburban railway traffic. We were told by the London Electric Railways that, with the present cost of constructing tubes which is now nearly £1,000,000 per mile, it was quite impossible under existing financial conditions to obtain money in the City of London for the projection of these tubes, and that, therefore, they could not contemplate that solution. Equally, the railway companies, in view of the intensive competition that was going on on the roads, could not contemplate the conversion of steam traction to electric. I hope, however, that I may be allowed at this stage to pay a tribute to the great enterprise of the Southern Railway Company, who are now just completing their great system of electrification of their London Suburban Lines. Therefore, we came, as the result of our three inquiries, to this definite conclusion, which I will read to the House:
The Committee, therefore, express the opinion that some scheme for bringing all forms of public passenger transport under unified control appears to offer the only satisfactory and lasting solution of the whole problem of passenger transport in London.
In spite of what one of my hon. Friends has said, I should like to pay my respectful tribute to the Minister for his kindness and sympathy. He has always given the Advisory Committee all the help in his power. He asked us to explore the possibilities of a co-ordinating scheme. Now I come to the example which was staring us in the face. That was the result that followed from the London Electric Railway Companies (Facilities) Act, 1915. Most hon. Members know that by that Act, the five great transport organisations were allowed to co-ordinate their services—the City and South London Railway Company, the Central London Railway Company, the London Electric Railway Company, the Metropolitan District Railway Company and the London General Omnibus Company. In the Preamble of that Bill they said that the purpose of the common fund, which was the basis of that co-ordination, was to maintain the requisite services for the convenience of the public and to provide for increased wages and expenses consequent on the War, and to enable further facilities to be afforded. Working expenses and certain prior charges were, of course, to be met before distribution of profits.
I say without hesitation that, as a consequence of that great co-ordination, it has been possible to operate, not only the tube railways, but the omnibuses, both as regards fares and services provided, as one undertaking, with undoubted advantage to the travelling public of London generally. Had it not been for the common fund which was possible owing to the union of those five companies, it would not have been possible to construct the Edgware extension of the tube, to modernise the City of London tube and to build the Morden tube. Those are standing monuments to the efficacy of that co-ordination. In addition, that co-ordination has given to London one of the best transport systems in the world. We may scoff as much as we like about this name or that, but I think the efficiency of the London tubes and electric railways and omnibuses establishes a monument of engineering and managerial genius. Furthermore—and I hope I shall have the support of the hon. Member for Rotherhithe (Mr. B. Smith) in this—I venture to say that, as a, consequence of that great
fusion, it has brought to the transport workers of that great industry, better conditions both of wages and service and security of employment. I am sure that the representatives of the Transport, Workers' Union, the National Union of Railwaymen and the Railway Clerks' Association will agree with me and pay their tribute to the great value of this scheme to all the workers in the employ of the Combine.
With that model in front of us, we built up the Blue Report. We decided that that should be extended in many ways. The Blue Report postulates certain fundamental conditions which I will now explain. First, there is the scope. It was contemplated that all passenger services, with the exception of the main lines, should be included in the system. Negotiations are now going on which may modify that decision as regards the main lines. It was also decided that all undertakings should remain in present ownership, that the common fund should be extended to include municipal as well as privately-owned undertakings, that there should be a common management, and, finally—although this may perhaps cause a little mirth amongst hon. Members above the Gangway who are not quite as much realists as other people—there was a decision as to any surplus funds which accumulate as a consequence of the operation of this new common fund, after a reasonable amount of capital has been given to the ordinary stockholders. I should very much like to discuss with the hon. Member for South Battersea (Mr. W. Bennett) the little intricacies of municipal and private finance so that he may not be quite as confused on the subject of redemption charges as he has been. He asked me "What is a reasonable return on capital?" It he will look in the last issue of the "Economist" for 1928 there is a long list of securities of this particular type upon which a reasonable return is obtained, and the amount of return varies from 5 per cent. to 7½ per cent. I must emphasise the words, "the highest class of securities."

Mr. THURTLE: May I ask whether that return is based upon the nominal value or the quoted market value of the shares?

Sir H. JACKSON: The value at which the shares were issued. How are these surplus funds to be devoted after a
reasonable return has been obtained? First, to provide credit for new capital, to carry out improvements of existing undertakings and to reduce fares. Everyone in this House is perfectly well aware that any astute, clever transport operator knows it is to his interest to carry a large number of people at small fares rather than a few at high fares. The whole object of the successful operator is to get fares as low as possible in order to attract traffic. A policy of the lowest possible fares within the economic limits is the right one. That was the report we submitted to the Minister, and it was practically a unanimous report. I may point out that the report was not only signed by the whole of the ordinary members, with two exceptions, but by three representatives of organised labour, one of whom is sitting here to-night and I believe they signed with the full approval of the leaders of their trade unions. It was quite defined that the Traffic Advisory Committee would like to have seen the full report carried out. It was obviously equally clear that, owing to the exigencies of Parliamentary time, it could not be carried out in the life of this Parliament. So the two promoters decided that in view of the urgency of the problem, it was vitally important that something should be done, and the London County Council and the London Electric Railway Companies decided to promote these private Bills.
What do these Bills propose to do? I say without hesitation that as regards principles there is no deviation from the principles of the Blue Report. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I say that in principle there is no difference between the two private Bills and the Blue Report. They propose that these two great operators shall be able to make agreements with one another or with any other transport agency in the London Traffic area. They also prescribe what shall be a formula which the Minister must approve, and which the House must approve, and decide what shall be the ranking capital upon which the dividend shall be paid. They decide how the surplus funds shall be applied. Further adequate compensation is to be given to the employees who may be affected by the operation of the Bills.
I come to the one point on which there was dissent a moment ago. In what way do they differ from the Blue Report? I
will be perfectly frank, whilst saying there is no difference in principle from the Blue Report. The Blue Report envisaged, with the exception of the main lines, that all the transport authorities should come into the scheme. These Bills, first of all, bring the two great partners into the scheme, and make it possible for others in the London traffic area to come into the scheme also. Instead of being mandatory and compulsory, it is optional for all other organisations to come into the scheme on a not less favourable basis. That is no hardship for the other transport bodies in the London traffic area. What is the safeguard? In the Blue Report it was decided that the Minister should have powers given to him, and that the Traffic Advisory Committee should have further statutory powers given to them in order to deal with the question of public safeguards.
What do these Bills propose? They propose, first of all, that all agreements must be submitted to the Minister. All agreements will naturally be submitted by him to the Traffic Advisory Committee, and their advice will obviously he taken. I say that this is a mere question of machinery; it is not a question of principle. I feel confident that the Minister will submit these agreements to the Advisory Committee, who will advise upon them, and that he will then submit them to this House for approval. Therefore, I have no hesitation in saying that the public have a greater safeguard under the present procedure than they would have under the Blue Report. I must correct the hon. Member for Mile End who said that these Bills do not give the right of appeal to Metropolitan boroughs. It is very unusual to find him in error, but if he will look at. Clause 9 in both Bills he will find that every local authority, however great and however humble, from the City of London down to the smallest urban district council, has the right to appeal to the Minister if there is an alteration in the rate of fares—which presumably hon. Members below the Gangway may think would mean an increase in fares—if there are any difficulties as regards adequacy of services, or any difficulties in regard to developments. A local authority may appeal to the Minister, who will hold an inquiry, and if these two great combinations are unable to make out their case, the
Minister can decline to allow them to proceed even with an alteration of their fares or services or to deal with the question of priority. Therefore, I say you have a public safeguard in that way which is complete and supreme.

Mr. R. MORRISON: Do not these powers exist in an Act already?

Sir H. JACKSON: No.

Mr. MORRISON: Yes, they do.

Sir H. JACKSON: I am indicating the safeguards to the public contained in these Bills. The safeguards are so complete that really the Minister is in supreme command, and, therefore, this House is very largely in supreme command. What is the issue that Members of this House have to decide? Here we have two great transport authorities who are coming to Parliament with public safeguards in this way. We have to ask ourselves what is the kind of co-ordination they offer to this House. I am sure that hon. Gentlemen are interested in the facts of the case. If you take all the omnibuses, all the tramways and all the railways, including the Metropolitan and the main lines, the Underground Group I and the London County Council Tramways carry no less than 77 per cent. of the whole of the passengers. I think we are entitled to say that if you can secure by private Bill legislation a co-ordination of London traffic which represents 77 per cent. of the whole traffic in the area, hon. Members are entitled to hesitate before they throw out these Bills on the question of some wild chimera about public ownership and nationalisation. Such are the main proposals of the Bill.
I would like at this stage to be permitted to make some observations in regard to the main line railway companies. I have already stated that negotiations are at this moment proceeding between the Traffic Advisory Committee and representatives of the main lines. In my opinion, and in the opinion of my colleagues—we have stated it more than once—no permanent and satisfactory scheme of passenger coordination in the London traffic area is feasible or possible without the main line companies. If I thought that these Bills created a barrier to continued negotiations between the main lines and the
Co-ordination Sub-Committee of the Traffic Advisory Committee, which were suspended prior to the passing of the Railways (Road Powers) Acts last year, and which have now been renewed, I would not have backed them. Because I believe that they will help, and not hinder these negotiations, I am giving these two Bills my full support. I have seen, and very carefully examined, the Main Line Railways proposals which are the basis of these negotiations, and the more I and my colleagues have examined them, the more am satisfied, as a member of that Co-ordinating Sub-Committee, that they are not inconsistent with the intention of the two Bills which are before the House to-night.
I understand that a statement is to be made during the course of this Debate on behalf of the main line companies, which, I believe, will be in accord with the views which I have expressed. What the Traffic Advisory Committee have to consider is simply this: Here is an urgent problem. It was urgent in 1926, and it is rapidly getting worse. We have to ask ourselves, Will we give our support to these two Bills as helping on a great system of co-ordination? The Advisory Committee had no hesitation in assuring the Minister of their complete support of these Bills.

Mr. B. SMITH: That is not correct.

Sir H. JACKSON: I will correct that. There were three dissentient voices. I am obliged to the hon. Member for reminding me. There is no secrecy about this; it is a public document. The three representatives of organised labour did not sign the Advisory Committee's final Report. There has been an increasing tendency in Parliament in recent years to approve of these co-ordinations. I refer to the Underground Act of 1915, and the Railways Act, 1921, amalgamating the Railways into four main line groups and the Railway Road Transport Ants of last session, which latter gave to the railways great powers of co-ordination which are now being put into operation all over the country. I cannot resist saying that one of the most significant acts in consequence of those arrangements has been the pooling of the Sheffield Corporation's transport with the London and North Eastern Railway, and I would add that the Sheffield
Corporation are dominated by a Socialist majority. [Interruption.] The point is that the Sheffield Corporation are doing in regard to the London and North Eastern Railway what we are asking Parliament to do to-night. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] The Sheffield Corporation have moved away from nationalisation and municipal ownership, and gone in the direction of co-ordination. Perhaps hon. Members above the Gangway will agree with that sentence.

Mr. SCURR: I think it is perfectly fair to say that the Sheffield Corporation have maintained the full ownership and control of the omnibuses and trams within the city, and that it is only with regard to omnibuses outside the city that they have made arrangements with the London and North Eastern Railway.

Sir H. JACKSON: Here is this Socialist corporation which has moved away from the pure faith of national ownership and gone into negotiation with the London and North Eastern Railway Company. I will not end with a peroration as a Londoner. I am going to make a wider appeal to the House. These Bills offer a solution in, three directions. They offer an immediate solution of the traffic needs of the great crowded districts of Greater London. The men and women who are not concerned with the shibboleths of party politics but who want tubes and improved transport facilities are the last persons to talk about nationalisation. I would appeal to my hon. Friends that we should take these things out of the cockpit of party politics. London traffic is too big a thing to be made the plaything of party political doctrinaires. Therefore, in the interests of crowded London I appeal to my hon. Friends to pass these Bills. At a time when we are asking for great schemes for employment, these Bills will mean that almost immediately schemes for the production of the tubes will be set in hand and work will be found for Londoners. Work will be found for the people who provide the tubes, and there will be the beginning of a 10 years' policy which will mean so much not only for the people of London but for the steel and iron workers of the country. On these grounds, I do sincerely hope that the House will give a Second Reading to the Bills.

Mr. HARRIS: We have heard a very interesting speech which comes with great weight from a member of the Advisory Committee. As I was listening to the hon. Member for Wandsworth (Sir H. Jackson), and especially to his reference to Sheffield, I could not help thinking of other great municipalities in other parts of the country. I wondered what would be the attitude of Conservative Birmingham, or Conservative Manchester, or Conservative Glasgow. I am glad to see a distinguished Member from Glasgow present, the right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne). I understand that he is going to give us the advantage of his experience from Glasgow. Perhaps he will tell us how they manage in Glasgow. We are told that they manage things better In Scotland. Perhaps he will give us some guidance in regard to the traffic problem in Scotland. I do not know what he would say if it was suggested that the Glasgow Corporation should part with the management of their transport system, and hand it over to one of the railway companies. They are shrewd people in Glasgow. We are told that the Scottish people are keen on the bawbees. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman will tell us whether Glasgow would agree to a scheme of this kind.
I have been connected for a quarter of a century with this traffic controversy. It is a very old controversy. I remember when it was originally suggested that we should take over the old horse trains from a private company. There was a terrible outcry. It was said that it was not right for a public authority to embark on a great enterprise of that sort; but better counsels prevailed, and ultimately, by a small majority, the county council took over the tramways and electrified them. I remember the great county council election of 1906, and I remember the professions of the Conservative party. They professed to have been converted to the principle of municipal ownership, that they were just as keen on municipal trading as any other party and that they could be safely trusted to do the right thing. They got their big majority. I notice several old members of the county council present, especially the hon. Member for Greenwich (Sir G. Hume). He did yeoman
service as Chairman of the Highways Committee. As the result of co-operation in a non-party spirit, to which the hon. Member for Wandsworth referred, in the running of the traffic of London, not only were great financial results achieved but immense improvements were made in the transport system.
When it is said that there is great room for improvement to-day and that there is great need for a more efficient transport service for London, I cannot help remembering that it was the competition of the municipal tramways which helped to stimulate the railways to electrification, and also pressed forward the conversion of the omnibus system from a horse-drawn to a petrol-driven system. Things went all right until the War. I was very much interested in the remarks of the hon. Member for Wandsworth about the Act of 1915. He did not tell the House the whole of the story. He did not tell us that that Act was brought about not simply to meet the needs of economy but to meet the needs of the War. Many railwaymen had gone overseas and it was necessary to economise coal and power. This scheme was carried out for purely War circumstances. There was a guarantee from the Government that the dividends should be maintained and that if the pool failed to provide the necessary money the Government would come to the assistance of the companies. As a result, intense competition took place against the county council tramways. Where the companies had practically no competition they were able to charge high fares on their monopoly routes, and they were able to concentrate on other routes with low fares to compete with the trams, in order to injure the tramway system. It was a deliberate and a Machiavellian policy to bring the tramways into the Combine. In spite of that fact and in spite of the fact that the Moderate majority on the county council were not keen on tramways and were not great believers in municipal trading, but were shy about it, and in spite of unfair competition the tramways held their own.
The hon. Member for Wandsworth told the House that the tramways were running at a loss. For the greater part of his speech he led the House to believe that the main purpose of these two Bills is to save the wasting assets of the County
Council tramways from destruction, that the tramways were on the down grade, and unless they came under the control of the Combine ruin stared them in the face. What are the facts? I have here a document signed by the Clerk of the London County Council, and issued from the County Hall, which shows that in the year ending March, 1928, there was a surplus of £522,000 on working, after paying all expenses, the whole cost of the running of the cars, providing power, paying wages, paying all the outgoings, maintaining the cars in proper condition and maintaining the rails. Against that surplus had to be set charges for debt and charges for sinking fund to wipe out the whole of the capital cost of the tramways in 25 years, amounting in all to £724,000. What are these debt charges? If this concern was a company, they would be paying dividends. The Chairman of the Finance Committee pointed out that if the tramways concern was a private company, they would be in a position to pay 4 per cent. dividend to the shareholders. For the next year there was an estimated receipt of £680,000, against debt charges and sinking fund, £745,000 or a loss of £43,000. You cannot, how ever, call that a loss. It means that instead of being able to pay 4½ per cent., they would be only able to pay 4 per cent. if they were a company to the shareholders. The estimate for the coming year is interesting. Competition still goes on, although I agree that it is not so severe, because a certain amount of common sense has prevailed and unnecessary competition is eliminated. The surplus on working this year is estimated to be £770,000, debt charges and capital £752,000, a net surplus of £18,000.
Whatever may be the merits of this controversy hon. Members should get out of their minds the idea that there is an actual loss on the system. I do not suggest that from the investors' point of view they are very attractive. They may be a gilt-edged security, but not a security in which the public should speculate. But against these figures should be put all the service that is given to the public. There are workmen's fares. I took part the other day in an all-night sitting in another place, not in the House of Lords but across the river, in the County Hall, and I came out on to the bridge at about 7 o'clock in the morning. There was not an omnibus in sight, but along came
tram cars, packed from top to bottom, people strap-hanging—workmen's fares. That is a service which the omnibuses do not give. I am not blaming them, but if the county council gives this service obviously it comes out of profits. There is also the all-night service. There was a suggestion that we should continue sitting all night to-night, but wiser counsels have prevailed and we are to have another sitting next Tuesday. Whatever time we rise if we cannot afford a taxi we should have the all-night trams running every half-hour of the night. This is of great service to the night workers of London, particularly to the printers who set up newspapers. Then again they also maintain the roadways for 18 inches on each side of the tramway, a great service. It is estimated that in this way they have saved the rates £1,500,000. That is one of the advantages of the tramway service; it is also a tax on the tramway profits. The omnibuses do not have to do this.
10.0 p.m.
Whatever judgment the House may come to on these Bills I do not think they should be influenced by the suggestion that the trams should come under the terms of the Combine because they are a losing concern. Actually, out of £17,000,000 borrowed from the public in the form of capital they have paid back no less than £8,500,000. That is a great achievement, and does credit to the people who run the service so efficiently, but who are now losing heart and want to hand it over to other hands. Let me for a few moments go back to the year 1923. I will not detain the House long because there are a number of experts who desire to speak on this subject. In 1923 we had a Conservative Government. Lord Ashfield has always believed in the principle of combines. He was trained as an American, and was brought over here by what is called the Yerkes-Perks Syndicate in order to conquer Europe. First of all he took over some of the tubes, then the District Railway, electrified it, and then proceeded to collar the omnibuses. Gradually, one by one, up to 1918, every competitor was bought out tubes, District Railway, omnibuses: but always in the background there was that nasty competitor, the trams. Lord Ashfield found that he could not get hold of them. He got hold of the ingenious idea, however, of using the
machinery of Parliament. I do not know whether it was the present Minister of Transport who was then in office or whether it was another holder of the office, but from what I have heard he apparently got a sympathetic hearing at the Ministry of Transport in 1923, when a Conservative Government was in office, and a Bill was thereupon drafted. It is known as Lord Ashfield's Bill. He certainly never made any secret that the terms were his and that he entirely approved of every paragraph. Then a great disaster occurred; the Conservative Government disappeared, and in due course a Labour Government was formed.

Mr. THURTLE: It is also known as Lord Ashfirld's Ministry of Transport.

Mr. HARRIS: It would not be in order for me to suggest that. Then an unfortunate labour dispute was suddenly sprung on the public. There was a strike: transport was paralysed, and I remember the consternation when we were suddenly told that on a Friday afternoon private business must he set aside as we had to deal with a special Government Measure which was going to stop the strike. And out of a pigeon hole appeared the Conservative London Traffic Bill, which was pushed through this House by the curious coalition of Labour and Conservative. I do not like to remind hon. Members above the Gangway of that coalition. It is embarrassing, no doubt, to both sides, but at any rate the result of this curious union was the bastard London Traffic Act. My friends and I got into great trouble because we obstructed that Measure all we could, but we failed to prevent it coming into force. We were told at the time that if only we passed it the traffic problem of London would be solved; there would be no congestion, everything would be regulated, there would he no unnecessary competition, and tubes would be built. Everything that is promised now was promised then. If we can only get coordination, that is a blessed word, as a result of this Bill coming into force, all our difficulties will disappear.
We have had some co-ordination for four or five years. We got in a proviso that the licences which were distributed were to be given fairly among existing omnibus owners. That was done; but all the competitors have been pretty well
bought up, and the various independent companies have been gradually eliminated. On the 30th of November, just under 4,000 omnibuses were owned by the London General Omnibus Company; they had a financial interest in 800 others, and there were only 640 outside the Combine. I am informed that in the last few weeks the greater part of the 640 has gone into the Combine. In spite of that, we are told that we have still got traffic congestion and that the tramways must be handed over to the trust as well. The great bait held out to the London County Council is that there is to be a "pool"; the profits are to be divided amongst the various interests. I had the interesting experience of meeting the representative of the Combine interests, under the distinguished chairmanship of Sir Henry Maybury. They were very frank and explained the working of the "pool" and the Combine. There are the tubes, the district railways and the London General Omnibus Company. They have separate accounts and separate boards of directors and are independent in their management; but Lord Ashfield is the chairman of each. There is an owning or operating company, which I understand consists of a board of 16 directors, men of great ability and experience in finance and of great knowledge and capacity. The public of London are offered two seats on that board. Two little innocent lambs from the London County Council, two inexperienced representatives of local government are to enter into conference with these 16 gentlemen.
I put it to the business men of the House whether they would hand over the valuable assets worth £17,000,000, or take it at the figure we have been given, namely, £8,500,000, to their competitors with only one-ninth of a share in the board of directors. Would they not be a little suspicious that their assets would not be so carefully looked after as the assets of the Combine? Lord Ashfield owes his first duty to his shareholders. He is a great artist in advertising, there is no finer publicity agent in the whole advertising world. Can we believe that he will persuade the public to travel on the tramways when he owns the omnibuses and the tubes? I can picture the posters we will see in future, advising us to travel on the tube and on the omnibus but never "travel by tram."
We are to hand over our assets for 42 years and we may wake up some day to find our assets worthless.

Sir H. JACKSON: There is no question of 42 years in the Bill.

Mr. HARRIS: It is true that no figure is mentioned, but we are told that 42 years is the period in the original scheme.

Sir H. JACKSON: But it is not in the Bill.

Mr. HARRIS: The hon. Gentleman says when it suits him that the Bill is the thing; but, when it suits him, he says it is the Blue Report that is the thing.

Sir ROBERT HORNE: Does the hon. Member suggest that any man interested in a "pool" would prevent one of the constituents from being able to contribute anything to that "pool"?

Mr. HARRIS: It is his present interest to develop his own assets. It is only common sense to suggest that, if the county council is to part with its tramways, they should do it properly and sell it at the very least for a valuable consideration. There are only three ways of which we have experience. There is the leasing system; there is the municipal system which has been so successful m Manchester, Liverpool and Glasgow, and there is competition. Every one of these has something to be said in favour of it. Competition means the most efficient and up-to-date system wins; but this new system has the vices of all three. I hope the House will refuse to give a Second Reading to this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Transport is mainly to blame. He ought to have produced his public Bill. It is all nonsense to say that there is no time for a public Bill. The time we are giving to this discussion could have been given to discussing a public Bill, and there would be nothing to prevent it going upstairs to a Standing Committee. The hon. Member for Central Wandsworth takes great exception to the suggestion that these tramways are to be handed over for 42 years. There are no details in this Bill. It is all left to negotiation. What chance is a committee of seven municipal councillors likely to have against the astute financiers who run the Combine? If we are to have co-ordination, let it be under public control, under
municipal control, and let the public have ample safeguards. These Bills neither protect the public assets nor secure to the public an efficient service.

Sir EVELYN CECIL: Several hon. Members, more especially my hon. Friend the Member for Central Wandsworth (Sir H. Jackson), have referred to the main line railways, and I rise for a few moments to make a statement, as I have been asked to do, on their behalf. The four main railway companies are opposed to this Bill in its present form, as in their opinion it does not afford a complete solution of the London traffic problem. Yet they feel that, owing to the complexity of the subject and the details involved, their objections or criticisms or proposals cannot be debated satisfactorily on the Floor of the House, but can be more appropriately considered in Committee upstairs. They therefore do not wish to occupy the time of the House by discussing their objections at this Second Reading stage. Speaking now entirely for myself, I should like to add—I hope the House will believe me when I say it—that I am sure that all parties concerned are genuinely anxious—I say so with all sincerity—to promote the utmost advantage to the London travelling public, and it seems to me, particularly after listening to this Debate, that the only question in doubt is the best practical means of attaining that end.

Mr. NAYLOR: The statement which we have just heard from the right hon. Member for Aston (Sir E. Cecil) indicates that those whom he represents are of opinion that the Bills do not meet the present traffic problem. We say that too. The Bills do not deal with the present traffic problem in any way whatever, and they are not brought forward with any intention on the part of the promoters of solving the traffic problem. They call it "co-ordination of passenger traffic." It is not merely co-ordination; it is also subordination of the interests of the travelling public, and subordination in the interests of those who own the capital of the transport in London. One always listens with pleasure to the hon. Member for Central Wandsworth (Sir H. Jackson). He has a certain winning way with him that almost converts one to his opinions. But I cannot say that was the effect of his speech to-night. He has taken a tremendous responsibility upon his shoulders in the statements that he
has made—statements made, it seemed to me, with a view of influencing the House, but statements which will not be justified by what takes place if these Bills are passed by the House. He said, "What we want is better travelling facilities in London." In what way does any part of these two Bills offer better travelling facilities to people of London?
Those who support the Bills have told us definitely—I think the hon. Member for Central Wandsworth said so—that the intention is to prevent a large amount of waste, which is said to be going on, in connection with the transport services of London. The hon. Member quoted instances where omnibuses and trams have been noticed to be rather short of passengers at certain times of the day. The intention then is to economise so as to prevent that waste. But is it not cutting down the conveniences and privileges of the travelling public if you reduce the number of vehicles by which they can travel? No—the interest in these two Bills is the Combine's interest. Is it likely that the Combine would suggest taking over the London County Council tramway service if they thought that it was in the bankrupt condition in which it is represented to be by the opponents of municipal control? They would not be good business men if they were of that opinion, and if at the same time they agreed to take over the tramway service. It is because they know that the tramway service is, in fact, paying its way, and will, in the near future, pay a handsome profit upon the capital which the ratepayers of London have invested in their tramways, that they are taking this step. That is what has induced them to come forward with these Bills, saying in effect, "Let us get together and work the whole traffic system of London in such a way as to enable us—the London County Council and the Combine—to make such a profit as we have never made before." That is why we are asked to pass these Bills.
The hon. Member for Central Wandsworth said we wanted more tubes. I agree. We want another tube in South-East London and another in North London. I was on a deputation which waited on Lord Ashfield in regard to both these propositions. Lord Ashfield said he was prepared to build those tubes if he got the necessary capital, but that
he could not get the necessary capital because he could not persuade the investing public that he would make a profit out of those transactions. He was right. It would not have been possible to have secured the enormous capital required for the boring of these two tubes without the expectation of a profit on it. Yet the hon. Member for Central Wandsworth endeavours to persuade us to vote for these Bills by telling us that if we pass them and make possible this combination between the London County Council service and the Combine, we shall have those increased travelling facilities. The hon. Member seems to assent to the responsibility of saying that such will be the outcome of passing these Bills. We shall see. I, for one, contradict his statement. I stand by what Lord Ashfield said. If these tubes could be made to pay, capital could he secured, but hon. Members are not going to convince the House that, because there is a combination of interests between the tramway service and the Combine to exploit the transport necessities of London, they are, therefore, going to find this capital without the expectation of any return upon it.
The hon. Member for Central Wandsworth has even gone to the extent of telling that to a newspaper man to-day, and an evening newspaper reports the hon. Member as saying it. He said something further, for he corroborated what the hon. Member for West Fulham (Sir C. Cobb) said in moving the Second Reading of the Bill. He said that the London County Council will retain control over the tramway service. The hon. Member said that to a newspaper reporter, and it is in black and white to be read by all who care to read it. But is that so? Has it not already been pointed out that there is no indication given in these Bills as to the actual agreement that is to be framed between the two bodies? We do not know to what extent the London County Council will actually be represented on the board of directors, but it is common talk, and I have no doubt it is more or less true that on this board of about 16 members there will be an addition of two representatives on behalf of the London County Council, who will be there in the capacity of holding watching briefs, and even if they had opinions contrary to those held by the representatives of the
Combine, they could not possibly influence any decision that might be reached. Of what worth is representation of that kind, and is it fair to say that the London County Council, under these conditions, still retains control of its tramways? It does not retain control. True, it retains the technical ownership of the property, but the people of London want the control to rest and to be kept in the hands of the London County Council, which they can control.
Even on the question of fares, I do not think the hon. Member for Central Wandsworth was quite right. He said the Bill gave the Metropolitan borough councils the right to make representations to the Minister of Transport, and he quoted Clause 9 of the Bill to prove that statement. I would refer him to the Interpretation Clause of the Bill, which puts quite another complexion upon that point. If the Interpretation Clause is to be read literally, it means that the Metropolitan borough councils will not have the right of representation to the Minister on the question of fares. Clause 2, on page 2 of the London County Council Bill, says:
The expression 'local authority' means the council of any county or of any county or other municipal borough or urban or rural district,
and it does not include a Metropolitan borough council.

Sir H. JACKSON: Will the hon. Member read Clause 9?

Mr. NAYLOR: It does not matter what is contained in Clause 9. Here we have, and I am reading to the House, the definition of what is contained in Clause 9, and it is the definition that counts in a matter of this kind. You read the text in order to get the meaning, but you read the definition of the text in order to get the authority; and I am quoting the definition against the hon. Member for Central Wandsworth, believing that, according to the statement made in the definition, a Metropolitan borough council will not have the right to make representations to the Minister on questions of fares.
I want now to say a few words concerning the objections raised by the Amendment on the Paper. I approach this question not merely as a Member of this House, but as a Londoner, as a man who uses omnibuses and trams,
and as one who votes for the representatives who are elected on the London County Council. My feelings in the matter are shared by a large number of men and women in a similar position to myself, and we ask why the London County Council should take this step when only in March last, when they were elected, not a single reference was made by the party in the majority on the council to the fact that they intended to sell the pass with regard to the London tramways. The County Council too, were in such a hurry to get this agreement and the Bill endorsing it passed, that they actually suspended their Standing Orders in order to make discussion of the matter possible. I can only conclude that they were in that hurry because they saw that their Friends in this House, the Conservative Government, were disappearing on the horizon, and they wanted to get these Bills through the House before the opportunity was lost. We agree that public control should accompany a public service of this kind. The people of London have become accustomed to the tramway service and to the facilities that only a municipal service can offer to the travelling public.
Large numbers of persons have to take advantage of the special privileges offered by the London County Council tramways. Facilities are not given by the omnibuses of the Combine. There is a distinct danger that these privileges will be cut down in the event of this combination taking place. We have been able to secure them by sending deputations to the London County Council from time to time, and persuading our representatives on the Council to concede them on account of the difficulty under which men and women in London would labour if the privileges were not granted. By pressure and by public representation on the municipal authority, we have been able to get these concessions. If we pass these Bills, however, no longer shall we have the opportunity of approaching anyone at all. We shall not be able to approach the London County Council with any hope of success; we shall only be able to make representations to the board of directors, where the County Council will be in a minority of two against 16.
This is a question affecting a public authority, and we believe that these pro-
posals are not a fit subject for private Bill legislation. We know the difference of procedure between a private Bill and a public Bill. After the Second Reading, a private Bill goes, not to a real live House of Commons Committee, willing to read and expected to amend the Bill; it goes to a judicial Committee, and the time is taken up by listening to the arguments of counsel. On the Report stage in the House, there is little or no opportunity of raising issues that could be raised on a public Bill. It is because we feel that a great injustice is being done to Members of this House, and especially to the London Members, by the introduction of these Bills in the form of private legislation, that we move this Amendment, and I hope that the House will hesitate before they pass the Bills.

Sir E. HUME-WILLIAMS: I would like to approach this Bill from an altogether new angle so far as the speeches already made are concerned. I propose to approach it simply from the point of view of the weary Londoner, the man who is going to profit or to lose according to whether we have a good transport arrangement or a bad one. I have heard a very able and eloquent speech from the hon. Member who moved the Amendment. I confess that I was a little startled to find that he described a Bill promoted by the London County Council, the present owners of tramways, as a Bill designed to destroy tramways. That is a little incomprehensible to my mind. I also heard the speech of the hon. Member for South Battersea (Mr. W. Bennett), who seconded the Amendment, and as it was his first speech in this House perhaps—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Well, I still offer him the congratulations which I had intended for him, although I am afraid they lose some of their point. I also heard the eloquent speech of the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris), who described himself as one of the innocent lambs of the London County Council. I listened to his bleating with some interest, although I confess I was somewhat astonished by his suggestion that if this Bill he passed the future owners or managers of the tramways are going to issue advertisements saying, "Whatever you do, do not travel by tramway." It is rather as though the owners of Pears' soap were to issue their well-known advertisement
in a new form, saying, "Use soap if you like, but for goodness' sake do not use Pears'." Those are the kind of arguments which I have heard, so far, in opposition to the Bill.
I approach the Bill, as I say, from my own standpoint, which is merely that of a man who wants to get about as quickly, as cheaply and as frequently as he can. I claim some experience of the subject to which I address myself, because I have been interested in transport questions in London for a great number of years. I remember the old omnibuses, with straw on the floor and a little ladder up which we used to climb. I remember the violent competition, competition which I am sure would have been abhorrent to the heart of any Labour Member, between the pirate omnibuses and the London General omnibuses; how they used to tear after each other along the Strand, and the language which the drivers used to bestow upon each other as they passed! I remember once seeing a pirate omnibus going away into the distance and a London General omnibus following. An old lady ran about in front of the omnibus and stopped it. I waited to hear a wealth of expletives from the driver, but instead he lifted his hat most politely and said, "Don't hurry, lady, don't hurry. Why not bring a camp stool and sit there?" I remember the opening of the underground tramways. The conditions in those days were very, very bad, and they became increasingly bad as the population grew. Then came the developments of 1915 which involved the promotion of the underground railways and the omnibus companies. Now the condition of things, owing to increases in the population, is rapidly getting worse, and the question arises: What is the proper solution of the difficulty? A Committee was appointed to consider this question, and I will read the last words of their Report. They say:
In conclusion, the Committee desire to emphasise their view that this matter is one of extreme urgency, as they feel convinced that no substantial improvements in the travelling facilities of Greater London can be effected until some such scheme as is outlined in this report can he made effective. The present conditions are rapidly becoming worse and delay can only add to the difficulties of finding a solution, and any formal negotiation with the parties must necessarily take a considerable time.
The Committee consider it imperative that they should be authorised to commence them at the earliest possible moment.
That Report was signed by the whole of the members of the Committee.

Mr. B. SMITH: Not all. It was signed by me, but our objection is that the recommendations have not been followed.

Sir E. HUME-WILLIAMS: Those are the views of the Committee. The question is still urgent, and now we have a chance of dealing with it and carrying out the scheme outlined in the report in all its main principles. It has been said that these Bills will do away with competition, but I do not take that view. I think competition is a very good thing if it is effective, because then you may get a better service and cheaper fares. We must not overlook the fact that there are circumstances which render co-ordination properly controlled even more effective than competition, and in this case coordination seems to me to be of that kind. I think under the circumstances co-ordination will provide a solution of this problem. Under these Bills, all the agreements have to be laid on the Table of both Houses for 30 days, and before they can be carried into operation the local authorities have a right to appeal directly to the Minister of Transport despite the rules made by the combination. Are the conditions for us—I am speaking from the point of view of the Londoner—going to be improved, or are they not? I think that a distinct improvement will result. We are told that one of the objects of this Bill is to make the finance easier, and to make it easier for the combined bodies to raise such funds as they require. I can well believe it. As far as I know, they will be able to borrow as much as they want, and the more the better so long as they spend it on improvements. If they tell us—and, after all, we have gentlemen here of the highest experience—that that is the only way in which they can get the money, for goodness' sake let us facilitate their getting it to the utmost of our power, because we want the improvement.
That competition, unless it be properly controlled, may sometimes deter improvement, is within my own experience. When I had the honour of piloting a Bill, on behalf of one of the great railway companies, through this House about
three years ago, I remember that an agreement was entered into between this great company and a smaller company serving one of the densely populated outskirts of London. That agreement provided that, because the great company had guaranteed a loan to the smaller company, the terminus of the smaller company should remain short of this densely populated neighbourhood, and that the big company should have it all to itself. They had, however, to come before this House for increased powers, and that agreement was soon put an end to. It could not be sustained, but for years it had been in operation, and, because these two companies had not an identical interest, because they were competing, the richer company forced the smaller company to remain where it was, and the outlying district of London, which was growing by leaps and bounds, suffered accordingly. If there had been anything in the nature of this Bill, if the interests had been the same, it would have been quite easy for them to use their existing facilities, rolling stock, and so on, to their own mutual advantage, which would have meant the advantage of the place that they served. And so it must be when such a question as transport has to be considered.
What is the great difficulty of transport? Everyone knows that it is to meet the early morning and late evening traffic. Everyone who has any experience must realise the difficulty of that. You have all your population from the outlying districts, which are becoming daily more densely populated as the exodus from London grows, and you have to bring them in within an hour or an hour and a half and to take them out again in the evening. The only way in which the public—we who are mainly concerned in this Bill—can hope to profit is by making it possible for these three bodies, the omnibuses, the tramways and the underground railways, who are all performing the same duty in different capacities, to put their heads together, with mutual profit as an incentive, and to utilise the means of transport that they have to their best mutual advantage. That is common sense and a good business proposition, and, therefore, it commends itself at any rate to me, as one of the public watching anxiously what is going to happen to the future transport of
London. I venture to put it to this House that these Bills have been carefully considered by experts, that they are the result of experience, and that they are brought before us by business men, who tell us that they wish to pass them in order to improve the transport of London. I believe that to be so, for the simple reason that they will make their profit. That being so, I suggest that common sense would dictate to the House that we ought to be thankful that, at long last, such a scheme has matured, and we ought to take advantage of the opportunity that is offered to us and to pass these Bills into law as soon as possible.

Mr. AMMON: In listening to this Debate, the House must have been struck by the great similarity between the Bill now before us and the one which the House considered a little time before we rose for the Summer Recess, when the cables and wireless communications were handed over to a private company. The similarity runs in several ways. We see to-night hon. Members and right hon. Members who seldom honour the House with their presence except on occasions like his when plunder is to be got. Then this Bill, like the former Bill, is very vague as to details. It is simply an enabling Bill arranged for details to be filled in very much later, so that the public are having a, property given away very much in the dark without having any real Parliamentary control. The lion, and learned Member for Bassetlaw (Sir E. Hume-Williams) who has just sat down, when giving us a history of the development of trams and omnibuses and other transport, might have gone a little further and told us the story of the attempt of the London County Council to co-ordinate its own service when it ran omnibuses over the bridges. There we had an attempt made to link up and co-ordinate the dead end of the service, and the same people who were instrumental in stopping that are with us just now. That is the whole story. It has been planned for a long period of years. There has been a dead set and a desire to eliminate competition in various ways until at last the London County Council tramway system is the only system which stands in the way of a complete control of the traffic of London. When the right
hon. Member for Hillhead asked hon. Members here, "Do you imagine that they would do anything so silly as to put one wing of the concern out of business?" he knows that is not an uncommon thing in business.

Sir R. HORNE: It is not common in business run by reasonable people where they are dividing a pool amongst the members.

Mr. AMMON: The right hon. Gentleman had spoken too soon. Both he and the hon. Member for Bassetlaw must be aware of the relationship between the railway companies and the canal system and the coastwise traffic.

Sir R. HORNE: There was not a pool there.

Mr. AMMON: You have very much the same thing here. When the hon. and learned Member for Bassetlaw says that we would be shocked at competition, it is not we who are shocked at competition; it is the other side who have been steadily eliminating competition where it has been to the public advantage, in order to fill the pockets of their friends and dividend-hunters outside.

Sir E. HUME-WILLIAMS: It was the hon. Member who moved the Amendment who said that the Labour party were not in favour of competition.

Mr. AMMON: The hon. and learned Gentleman himself said that the particular competition to which he referred would have shocked the Socialist party, and it is that sentence to which I am referring. When the hon. Member talks about the reports being laid on the Table, what earthly good is that' How could any hon. Member with any experience talk like that when he knows there is no provision or Parliamentary procedure to make these things effective? Look at it from another point of view. The hon. Member was talking about failure. I would remind him of the Metropolitan Tramway System and the London United Tramways—both run as private concerns. Compare them with the London County Council system, publicly owned, and I defy any hon. Member to say that they compare in any way favourably or can stand in the same street as the County Council system. The Metropolitan Tramway system—I
think I am right in this—threatened to throw in their licence to the Middlesex County Council because they were unable to make the business go. I believe also—and again I speak subject to correction—that the London United Tramways system was very much in danger of having a receiver put in during the War years, because they were unable to make it go. It is interesting to notice the logrolling that is going on. I suggest that when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aston (Sir E. Cecil) declared that he did not want to waste the time of the House because the matter would be settled upstairs, it was an indication that a deal has already been arrived at; that they have already arranged the terms on which they are going mutually to exploit the public.

Sir R. HORNE: I am also, as it happens, interested in the main line companies, and I mention with certainty to the House that it is quite untrue and incorrect to say that any arrangement has yet been come to.

Mr. AMMON: I accept the right hon. Gentleman's statement, but I cannot get it out of my mind that he is in both camps, and that fact must be borne in mind by the House. I want to lodge a protest in the name of the travelling public of London against this matter being dealt with as Private Business. It is very much like an attempt to rush through this House business at the dying end of a Parliament when the Government seem to be handing out public assets to their friends. We cannot bring that point of view home too much to the public as showing how this Parliament has abused its trusteeship in this direction. Co-ordination in public services is one thing. No one objects to co-ordination of public services. What we object to, is the handing over of public assets to the London Traffic Combine when those assets could very well largely be managed by the public themselves.
Much has been said about safeguarding. There are better safeguards existing in the Traffic Act than are contained in this Bill, because the people who are likely to lodge protests are to be eliminated as fat as the control of traffic is concerned. With regard to profits, if the Metropolitan and the District and Tube Railways had had to run their businesses and find sinking fund in the same way
as have the London County Council in regard to their trams, they would have been bankrupt long since. It is common knowledge that the tube system runs only because it is in the pool, and that to a large extent the necessary money has been found by the London General Omnibus Company. The whole thing is another instance of the financial ramp that is being put across this House in the interests of a certain section of the community to the detriment of the public. As to the stated diminution of accidents, after all is said and done, what does it amount to? We are told that instead of running at 12 miles an hour, the new omnibuses will travel at a rate of 20 miles an hour. Therefore, we are not likely to see any diminution in the number of accidents. It will mean that traffic will be speeded up all along the line, and it may have the result of actually diminishing instead of increasing the number of employés in the service.

It being Eleven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed upon Tuesday next, at half-past Seven of the Clock.

Orders of the Day — LONDON ELECTRIC RAILWAY COMPANIES (CO-ORDINATION OF PASSENGER TRAFFIC) BILL (by Order).

Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next, at half-past Seven of the clock.

Orders of the Day — ARCHITECTS (REGISTRATION) BILL [Lords].

Postponed Proceeding resumed on Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Question again proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

It being after Eleven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — RYE LIFEBOAT DISASTER (RELIEF FUND).

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Wallace.]

Mr. BROMLEY: May I ask the Attorney-General if he can give the House any information with regard to the Rye lifeboat fund, as a result of the inquiries which he was good enough to undertake in response to a question which I addressed to him recently.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): I am glad to have this opportunity of giving some information to the House as to the course of events since the hon. Member for Barrow (Mr. Bromley) first drew my attention to this matter on 6th February. In accordance with my statement to the House on that occasion, I immediately asked the Mayor of Rye to see me. I gave a similar invitation to the solicitor who I was informed was acting on behalf of the dependants, and they saw me on 11th February. I discussed with each of them the position with a view to the disposal of the fund so as to carry out the objects of the fund, namely,
to help those dependent on the men who lost their lives in the disaster.
After hearing the facts, I formed the opinion that the moneys given by the public must be treated in law as a charitable fund. It was solely on this footing that I undertook the responsibility, as Attorney-General, of making some suggestions to the Mayor of Rye and to the solicitor acting for the dependants as to the best method of applying the fund. It was obviously necessary to prepare some sort of scheme or trust for the division of the fund, particularly in view of the facts that in the 12 families immediately bereaved there are a large number of young children, and that in some cases two and even three members of one family had laid down their lives, and that consequently there were wide variations in the numbers of dependants left by each man. It was, moreover, necessary to give some consideration to the ascertainment of the dependants in order that as far as possible what would have been the wishes of the men themselves if they had lived might be regarded.
Certain suggestions were made of a tentative character to enable a draft deed or scheme to be prepared. I proposed that those acting on behalf of the dependants should see it in draft and that I also should have an opportunity of considering it. The scheme
was to provide for a wide discretion on the part of those administering the fund to advance capital sums for the benefit or advancement in life of all the dependants, besides securing to the aged parents and to the widows of the men a certain regular income. It is obvious that no more than general and tentative proposals could at that stage be made, but I certainly hoped, and still hope, that by the exercise of good will and common sense, an arrangement agreeable to all will be made. I ought to add that I proposed the scheme should provide for a small committee composed of men and women resident in the neighbourhood, and as far as possible acquainted with all the facts, who would advise the Trustees as to the outlay of the funds at their disposal.
I am informed that progress is being made and that no delay will be allowed. My purpose and duty is to see that the whole of the fund is applied as promptly as possible for the sole benefit of the persons concerned. Meanwhile, every possible need and request of any of the dependants have been met, and I intend to see that this continues. The acting trustees are no less desirous that this should be done and as proof that the fund is being administered to this end, I may say that in the 13 weeks that have passed since the fund was opened, £1,168 has been paid over to the various families, in addition to a sum of £229 paid to meet the funeral expenses, or a total of £1,397. I hope the advisory committee, who, I gather from newspaper reports, have resigned, will reconsider the step they have taken. I feel sure their continued help will be most valuable.

Captain GUNSTON: May I ask the Attorney-General if the statement which has appeared in the Press, that the widows and dependants have not received any money at all, is correct or incorrect?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: It appears that a sum of something like £1,400 has been advanced to a number of these dependants in the twelve or thirteen weeks since the disaster.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Nine Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.